Take Back Bangladesh

Today is TBB day. It is a day when we pledge that we will take back Bangladesh from the path of destruction. Free & fair elections are our inalienable right. It is up to each and every citizen to stand up for it.

Another of our basic right is that under Article 32 of the Bangladesh Constitution, “No person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty”. So any action, however well meaning, that takes away our liberty to live a normal life should be rejected. We should not live in fear.

Today we take a small step that we hope with your support will become a giant leap!

Wear Black Badge

We all want free and fair elections.

It is widely agreed that neutrality of the Caretaker Administration and Election Commission is a pre-requisite for free and fair elections.

The Chief of the Caretaker Government, it appears is neither non-partisan nor neutral, and the conduct of the Election Commission has hitherto been shocking.

At the same time while many in the Nation agrees with the 14-party agenda in regards to securing free and fair elections, their destructive methods have precluded public participation on a mass scale.

Yet, we wish to participate in the destiny of Bangladesh. We want free and fair elections.

It is time that we the general public take a stand.

Back in 1969-71, wearing a small rectangular BLACK BADGE on the arm or chest became a powerful symbol of protest against the vile political machinations of the Pakistan Government. Virtually everybody wore it. The BLACK BADGE expressed the single-mindedness of the people in their quest for justice.

It is once again time that we the general public take a stand.

Starting November 20th, 2006 wear a BLACK BADGE on your arm or chest, or fly a BLACK FLAG on your roofs to protest against election engineering and also the violence that is being done in our name. And encourage others to do the same.

Free and Fair Elections is one of the basic entitlements we have as a citizen of this great nation. It is now upon us to protect it.

Milton Friedman: 1912 – 2006

“A society that puts equality...ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.”



What Friederich Engels said of Karl Marx upon his death should really now be said of Friedman, that today "the greatest living thinker ceased to think."*

This is a man for whom my admiration while growing up was more than that of other teenagers’ for Marilyn Monroe. The 1976 Nobel Prize winner in Economics is to a laissez-faire capitalist the equivalent to Bob Dylan is to the flower-power peaceniks; or a on a more comparable level – equivalent to Karl Marx to the Communists.

Milton Friedman was an intellectual tiger. The father of monetarism. Leader of the powerful “Chicago School” of economic thought. Based on his theories the “trickle-down” Reaganomics of the roaring 80s fuelled growth and globalization in an unprecedented pace. It led to the fall of communism and birth of free trade.

I am not going to try today to either explain his economics or try to debate them. All I want to say is that a person who had a profound influence on our world (and do me personally) is dead. A legend in his own time, a legend for all time.

Some more of his quotes

“Political freedom means the absence of coercion of a man by his fellow men.

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.

The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem

A society that puts equality...ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.

I’m in favor of legalizing drugs. According to my values system, if people want to kill themselves, they have every right to do so. Most of the harm that comes from drugs is because they are illegal.

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.

The Great Depression, like most other periods of severe unemployment, was produced by government mismanagement rather than by any inherent instability of the private economy.”


The following link takes you to the "autobiography" Milton Friedman had writen for the Nobel Committee:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1976/friedman-autobio.html


For more information / tribute read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman
http://www.ideachannel.com/Friedman.htm
http://www.hoover.org/pubaffairs/releases/4667846.html
http://www.mises.org/story/2393
http://www.adamsmith.org/index.php/main/heroes/select/Milton%20Friedman/
http://www.cato.org/
http://www.freakonomics.com/blog/2006/11/16/sad-news-milton-friedman-has-died/

*Grateful to http://www.willisms.com/ for both the picture and this quote.

Free Subscription

I often think, who really want to hear what I have to say? Well apperantly some of you do. I've been requested by many to keep informing them whenever I update the blog.

Well for those who get bombarded with my emails and sms, I say, fear not. There is an easier way of doing this. In the panel on the right you will see the option of subscribing to this blog. That is everytime I update, they will send you an email. (Before you shout spam! - not more than one time a day and your email id is not sold to anyone trying to sell any wonder drugs).

Sign up and allow me to bore you about life, politics, Bangladesh and other "nonsense" I care about!

Are we fighting for Democracy?

This election aside, true democracy will not come till there is independence in the parties themselves. Both AL & BNP will need to have elections to party posts. MP nominations need to come from the constituency level. And MPs should have the right to vote against their party in Parliament. Otherwise in the “winner-take-all-my-netri-is-always-right” system we have currently, Iajuddin is right, it is Presidential. I would even go as far as to claim it to be dictatorial.

People get the government they elect! And they can only elect the people who run. Doc Y, CPD and the rest can go on crying “elect clean candidate” but till we are willing to take a stand and contest in elections and get involved in politics there will not be any change. We will just replace one corrupt and ineffective government with another.

Power also needs to devolve to the people. Rajiv Gandhi championed the Panchayat Raj in India. We need to do this here. Development work and local administration should basically happen where it all happens – the villages. A working body of Union Chairmen plus the UNO (Upazila Nirbahi Officer) should decide on how to best use the development funds available to the various unions in an upazila. And for God’s sake they should arbitrate on petty constituency level issues (e.g. who stole who’s goat) and not allow the MP to be involved in everything. Our honourable MPs should be free to be honourable. Their role is to lay down the vision for the nation; the laws that effect us; the guidelines of governance (budget, policies, et.al) and to act as auditors of the local government.

Until these two fundamental changes occur all these oborodhs, rallies, processions, backroom manoeuvring, constitution readings, talk-shows, articles in newspapers, blogs, debates, bothi-logha-kanchi, fiery speeches, posters on the wall, politically motiveate killings, white papers, corruption charges, mean nought, nada, nothing!

The Power of One

As the President Professor Dr. Iajuddin Ahmed appointed himself the head of the Non-party Caretaker Government, many cried foul. No intelligent interpretation of our constitution would put the President at the head of the caretaker government (CG) without exhausting a bevy of other appropriate alternatives. However convoluted his reasoning may have been, AL showed restraint and gave him the benefit of the doubt. The nation gave their President a chance to prove himself to be neutral and rise over the petty politics that had gripped the nation. We reasoned that mild mannered educationist will appoint an able body of advisers and they, like their predecessors before, would turn out to be impartial and more so, effective.

The Chief of CG (CCG), as the constitution allows him appointed 10 respected members of the society as advisors. With the exception of a few, the “wow” factor it seemed was missing from the line up. It was widely reported that the advisors were drawn up from a list submitted by the major parties. While the question was raised, about if they met the Constitutional provision of being “non-party”; the society, and to its credit the main political groups accepted the choice and hoped that this will end most of the controversy in this regard. Unfortunately when we thought it could not get any worse, it did! A few questioned the composition itself. Why did the business community not have a representative? The citizenship of a certain advisor was questioned. And then it got a whole lot more serious.

Common citizens quickly complained that the Advisors did not show the energy levels expected from them. Of course they did not have time to do the homework required for the job and therefore took some time to find their “sea legs”. But it seemed that they were kept in the dark about many of the decisions that the constitution entrusted to them to take. The President, it was obvious, was politically too inexperienced to differentiate his role as head of the nation to that of his duty as the CCG. Worse, accusation levelled against the Bangabhaban was that the President’s politically appointed minders were calling the shots. They were present at advisory council meetings and refused to heed opposition demands to step aside. Any person even slightly knowledgeable of the workings of the government could easily point out that there was backroom politicking happening in scales that has not seen in our young democracy in many years.

The difference between the CCG and rest of his advisors was soon out in the open. Many believe that the advisory council painted themselves into a corner when they openly said that the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) had to go. While it bought them time from the AL, political manoeuvring by the President’s secretaries ensured that this could not be translated into actionable deeds. And then out of the blue came the most damning action of all. The Home Secretary without the knowledge of the CG (it is not known if the CCG was aware of this move) attempted to call in the Army. How could such a bold and potentially course altering decision be taken without consulting the CG? More so when they had met that very same day? More than a few questions are raised. Did the President / CCG know? Did he comprehend the gravity of the action? Was there someone else calling the shots? And the most worrisome of the questions, was the constitution itself violated?

While I cannot answer the first few of these questions as I am not privy to what goes on in the great mind of the President, I believe the last is easy to dissect. The Article 58B [3] states “The executive power of the Republic shall, during the period mentioned in clause [1], be exercised, subject to the provisions of article 58D [1], in accordance with this Constitution, by or on the authority of the Chief Adviser and shall be exercised by him in accordance with the advice of the Non Party Care-taker Government.” Basically this clause states that the executive power (i.e. the responsibility of day to day functioning of government) rests with the Chief Adviser (as opposed to the President) and can only be done with the agreement of the remaining of the Advisors. “…in accordance with the advice of the Non Party Care-taker Government.” These words are very important. “Advice” in this case is not same to the one my wife takes when she asks which sari she should wear. This “advice” is not open to acceptance or rejection. This “advice” is the legal wording that says, “Must do”.

Now I know, some might be thinking “hey, the CCG is the same as the PM in a normal time. So isn’t the PM’s wish supreme? Could she not have disagreed with rest of her cabinet on a topic and still come out on top?” Well that logic, though enticing, breaks down in two counts. In a Parliamentary system the PM is Primus Inter Pares – Latin for First Amongst Equals. That means the PM is one of the many ministers of the cabinet, who while having the overall responsibility of the co-ordination of the cabinet does not supersede remaining of the members of that body. It is another matter that in our fragile democracy PM acts as the defacto President of yesteryear with complete authority.

More importantly one needs to look at the clause giving executive power to the PM during normal time of functioning. Article 55[2] states “The executive power of the Republic shall, in accordance with this Constitution, be exercised by or on the authority of the Prime Minister.” Full Stop! None of the “advice” of the council of minister business. She has, according to our constitution, the last word on what is correct for her Government to take. Of course she has to get it ratified by the Parliament but she and she alone bears the ultimate responsibility of any government decision or action. And if her ministers do not like it, she has the liberty of firing them.

That is not the case with the advisors. The President or the CCG has no authority to remove them (except in extra-ordinary circumstances). And while the CCG is the person who chooses the body of advisors, once they take the oath, their roles are equal.

So here we stand, the CCG has to work in accordance to the collective (or at least majority) wisdom of the Advisory council of which he is another member. This body is entrusted by the Constitution and by the nation to carry out the responsibilities of government. The onus is now on the Non-party Caretaker Government to take responsibility for their action. As Dr. Yunus said, it is time to be strong and hold steady. The framers of our constitution (and of its amendments) did not give complete executive power to the unelected CCG but to the body of eminent members of the society. It is now upto them to show leadership. It is upto them take the necessary steps required to faithfully execute the decisions that will lay course to our prosperous future. They cannot hide behind the excuse of powerful bureaucracy or Bangabhaban bullies. If someone puts up a roadblock or if someone believes he is above the Constitution, it is within the power of the CG to take that person to task. There is no need to be afraid. Hold steady, and no one can move you from the path of righteousness. It reminds me of the Bangla saying “Doshay milay kori kaaj, hari jitee nahi laaj”. (A rough English equivalent being “United we stand…”)

Enayetullah Khan : 1939 - 2005

"The state of non-happening is once again strung together by the beads of rhetoric. But it no longer sparkles as in the olden days to cover the dark patches of national failures.

Nothing possibly could be worse than what it is today. Only doom can beat it all. Hence optimism fights back in a pitch dark tunnel of an unrewarding politics that holds little light at the end of it. Or it may as well be a blind tunnel with no way to go. We are just in the middle of it singly, collectively, and as a nation.

If the flower of democracy has wilted before it could blossom, we have no tears to shed for it. Because it hardly existed even in its distorted frame."

Weekly Holiday, March 1975

Today is one year anniversary of the late great journalist Enayetullah Khan

Dr. Y + Dr. K + Dr. B = ?

Recently someone asked me the following question:

“how do u reckon the chance of Dr. Younus, the 'man of the moment' in Bangladesh, joining hands with old horses like Dr. Kamal and Dr. B. Chowdhury???? And, what could be the result in that case, any idea???”

I'd like to split my answer into three. 1. Will it happen? 2. What if it happened? 3. What probably will happen?

Well the first answer is quite easy. Not likely. Though given current turns that politics in Bangladesh have taken, cannot be ruled out.

The second answer is somewhat more complex. To understand it I think we have to analyze each of the components of the equation.

Dr. Y: riding high after the Nobel. Plus has tremendous amount of goodwill without any major political baggage. He, I believe, can galvanize a lot of popular support. And if he made the request, many "clean" candidates will take the plunge. But so far he has disappointed me personally. Over the last few months (since his Anti Corruption Commission article in early '05 - my criticism in my blog) he has made many calls and inspired others without necessarily leading from the front. As a leader you need to be at head of the charge. His ideas are great but we don't need ideas as much as we need someone to take the reins and say this is where we are going. Dr Y has failed there.

Dr. K: a man with impeccable mental ability. He is someone who is articulate in his thought and decisive in his judgment. The biggest mistake he made was forming Gono Forum. Though I was a supporter of the GF in the '96 elections, I never thought they had a chance. Dr. K would have been better as an "elder statesman". He could have been like a political ombudsman; one who could be the nation's conscience. We would go to him at times of crisis like this or when we needed guidance or a goal. Unfortunately he is now seen to be a small partial player.

Dr. B: another articulate man. He has enough personal charisma to charm the voters. Over the years has built up excellent organizational skill and experience to run a grassroots political party. He has enough cache with the international community, civil society and general mass to have pulled himself above petty politics and take a stand on issues. His initial gambit of putting out political posters with Bhasani, Mujib and Zia was a marketing / PR genius! Unfortunately it has been downhill since then. He has failed to build his party. Why, he has failed to appeal to even the middle class intellectuals who are looking for leadership. He has failed to show what he stands for. The recent LDP is a good initiative though they still haven't given us clarity about their philosophy and guiding principles. While LDP makes a big thing about the corruption of BNP's Hawa Bhaban crowd, they have amongst them the notoriously dishonest Jahanara Begum and morally corrupt Alamgir Kabir.

On paper Dr. Y + Dr. K + Dr. B = winning combination. But in reality I think it has the potential of blowing up in our faces. Or even worse - dying without even a whimper!

If we can get Dr. Y to join active politics, why do we need the other two? They bring baggage that some of the Gen71 (amongst others) will find that they cannot live with. Dr. Y himself is good enough to bring moral strength and fortitude to build an honest, efficient and effective third force. Just think about it. If he called you and said "I'm looking for people who will join my new crusade, will you accept?" I don't know about you, but I will be willing to give up my world to stand behind him. And I know hundreds if not thousands other who will as well.

Dr. K + Dr. B did try the formula without the "magic" ingredient. But it did not create a stir.

The answer to the third question is that Dr. K & Dr. B have already have understanding of the political maneuvering need till the next elections. Dr. K will go back to the AL for support and Dr. B to LDP. Hence it looks as if LDP and AL will have a pre-election agreement. The basis of this agreement I think will be that AL will agree not to put any candidates in 25-30 constituency where LDP candidates have a chance of winning. LDP will also run campaigns in another, say, 100 odd seats where they will play the role of "spoiler". That is they will split the old BNP votes and in-turn allow the AL candidate to win. Do remember that the winning margin in more than 150 seats in the 2001 election was in single digits. Even a small 4% swing of voters away from the BNP can lead to a loss of these seats. [For election analysis see http://nazimkamranchoudhury.blogspot.com]

Dr. Y in the meantime will not do too much except keep saying that we need "clean" candidates in the election.

Dr. Y + Dr. B + Dr. K = could be, would be, should be!

Why this round actually goes to AL?

I give AL the upper hand in the parlour politics is because they have come out better after flinging all the mud.

a. Hasina, Jalil and the others were very vocal that they did not want the President to be CTG. Hence when they are now “reluctantly” agreeing people will take it as a goodwill gesture from the AL.

b. Article 58e states: “Certain provisions of the Constitution to remain ineffective. Notwithstanding anything contained in articles 48(3), 141A(1) and 141C(1) of the Constitution, during the period the Non-Party Care-taker government is functioning, provisions in the constitution requiring the President to act on the advice of the Prime Minister or upon his prior counter-signature shall be ineffective.”
The above-mentioned clause hence allows the President not (yes that is right – NOT) to listen to the advice of the Caretaker Government! “…provisions in the constitution requiring the President to act on the advice of the Prime…shall be ineffective” Effectively what this means is that the President practicality exercise supreme power when it comes to the functioning of the Government.

c. So isn’t it better that we are aware that the President could be a party stooge now, rather than he doing something behind the scenes to jeopardise a free and fair elections?

d. They now have the reform of the Election Commission. (which it seemed they had to give up earlier as they “won” the CTG head!) How can the President now not change MA Aziz and the others, and appear neutral?

e. How has the BNP done? They seem like people who bullied the President into this. We do not have any newspaper, experts or civil society person (other than the obvious BNP people) saying the President did not take liberties with the constitution! And most report backroom politicking by the BNP as a reason for this.

f. Viz a viz the Army. I agree it is still too early to call. The scenario does exist where the President will not agree to Election Commission reform. AL then will start its agitations again. And the gloves will come off. Army has to step into the scene to restore law and order. But they cannot but remain neutral. Hence come out against the worst of BNP activists as well.

The AL Response

As most of you must be knowing by now, President Iajazuddin has decided to name himself the head of the CTG despite an AL plea for him not to. His interpretaion of the constitution (in advice of the partisan Attorney General) can not hold up in any court and the events leading to the decision quite untransperant and dubious.

Like rest of the country I expected the AL to be crying from every rooftop. But I must say I am quite surprised and impressed by the AL reaction. Their response was very measured. It was following the argument that "we can not agree to the process through which the head of the CTG has been chosen but we are willing to give it a go and see if the President can be impartial.”

This has done a few things for them:

1. Shows AL in a positive light. They seemed politically wise and compromising
2. They were practical and showed that violence is not their only tool
3. Gives them bargaining power to have a strong say in selection of the caretaker advisors, and to extract other compromises. (eg reform of the Election Commission)
4. Has not pushed the AL to the corner viz a viz the Army

I am sure over the next few days we will see AL getting the upper hand in the political process.

The mood in general in Dhaka is that “yes the President has used a very Clintonesque argument in naming himself to the position, but hey, give him a chance to prove himself.” Onus is now on the President to rise to the occasion. The AL (and most of media/ civil society) will no doubt now putting everything the President does under a microscope. And if the choice of the other advisors is correct, then the room for one-sided manoeuvrability on his part is severely curtailed.

I also hope (though do not believe) that the AL shows such maturity when it comes to events leading up to the elections.