Dr. Dilara Choudhury Photo: STAR

Dr. Dilara Choudhury is a professor at the Department of Government and Politics at Jahangirnagar University. Author of "Bangladesh and the South Asian International System" and "Constitutional Development in Bangladesh: Stresses and Strains," she contributes regularly to a number of professional journals. Twice, in 1989-90 and 1990-91, she has been to Columbia University as a Visiting Scholar. During 1996-97, she has been to University of Maryland, College Park, as a Senior Fulbright Scholar. She received Rokeya Podok in 2004 and UGC Award in 2005. Shamim Ashraf took the interview.
What are the advancements since 1/11?
The caretaker government pledged reforms and a free and fair election. Some achievements have been done very well, including institutional reforms of EC, PSC, ACC and local government commission set up. Political leaders tried to resist at the beginning, but ultimately brought reforms to their parties, and have sought party registration with the EC. Earlier they weren't agreeing to register at all.
Parties blamed the government for trying to impose reforms on them …
They won't do it willingly. The EC requested them to register many times earlier but they didn't. Though not fully, the attempt to turn the political parties into accountable organisations has succeeded to some extent. Changing their constitution, they have brought internal democracy to their parties, accepted the proposal for accountability and transparency regarding funding and expenditure, the proposal for initiating the nomination process from the grassroots, ensuring the participation of women members in each unit of the party by 2020, and election code of conduct. The rest depends on the mentality of the political parties.
In different countries, political parties bring reform themselves. As they didn't do that, the CTG tried to. But if it doesn't come from within, it becomes cosmetic. If the parties haven't done the reforms in their constitution meaning it, they'll not practice it in the future.
You said earlier the government should sit with the parties …
That could be the realistic approach. When the CTG started the anti-corruption drive, they started arresting the politicians and didn't bother to sit with the parties. It happened because some advisers misguided the government. The parties also had negative attitude towards the CTG, thinking that the government is after them. There was a gap between them. However, the government later realised it, changed its stance, and started taking steps to gain the confidence of the parties. Through dialogues, both sides moved away from their rigid stance.
It is true that democracy is not possible without political parties, but political leaders shouldn't think that it is not possible to do without them. Somebody will fill the vacuum, but that may not be in the interest of the people and the country.
Do you think 1/11 has changed their mentality?
We presently do not have any scale to measure that. It can be seen after the election when they will form the government and rule the country. But the CTG's aim to keep the corrupts from election has also succeeded to a great extent, as those who have been convicted will not be able to participate in the election while emergency is in force.
People now will have to see, after parties give nomination, what information the candidates provide. The EC will scrutinise the information to see whether the candidates can be nominated if it will be made public to help people make up their mind. Besides, an arrangement has been kept for getting yearly updated information on the MPs' financial wealth and also about the information of their relatives.
Can we hope city election-like nomination won't take place?
We hope parties will not nominate those known as corrupts and criminals. They can compete in election until they are convicted, but the parties will have to decide whether they will even nominate those facing the charges. The AL has said several times that it will nominate from among those whose names will be on the list sent from the grassroots level. If BNP also follows it, it can be implemented.
What will happen if the names of corrupt suspects come from the grassroots?
The end result would depend on the voters. Voters in our country cast their vote seeing the party symbol. The expectation that people will not vote for those facing corruption allegations was shattered by the local government election results. The voting behaviour in our country not only shows that people cast their vote seeing the symbol, but also proves that the feudal mentality among our people and leaders is still strong.
Has the anti-corruption drive succeeded to instil some ideas about corruption in people?
Yes. People already know about it and want punishment for it, don't want to see the corrupt in election again. But they may vote for such people again because they think these elected representatives as patrons, their friends during their bad times. They think that it doesn't matter whether they are corrupt.
The EC has to ensure that no questionable person can take part in the elections through legal loopholes. The parties have to understand that they have to serve people and need honest and patriotic leaders, and give nomination accordingly. They will have to give nominations to people who will serve people, not become their patrons. Parties are the main actor, the EC's role is secondary.
Do you think the EC played its due role during the city and municipal elections?
No. They showed negligence in scrutinising the information during the polls. So many questionable people got nomination. The EC will have to remain cautious to stop repetition of it.
Do you think there is any realisation among parties to move beyond criminalisation and violence in politics?
We'll see. People have already said in different interviews that they do not want the corrupt people leading them any more and take us back to previous situation. It shows people lost their trust in political parties and supported this unelected government.
If there is public support for a civilian government, military or any force cannot intervene, people come out on the street. But this time it didn't happen, people rather chastised the parties. If they want to be in business, political parties must bring back that confidence. They will have to do it by returning to true democratic practice and sticking to the rules of the game.
Why did the government go for the Minus-2 formula?
I'll not only blame the government for it. Earlier, I spoke with many donors who said all the problems will be solved if the two ladies disappear. Many people also said this out of frustration. Coming to power, the government also thought that's the popular perception. But people are now saying we cannot do away with them. When their policy fails, the leaders quit willingly in other countries. But if they don't reject them, it will be impossible to remove them using force.
Cannot they use this popularity to break away from the existing political culture?
They can bring changes if they want. The confrontational politics can go totally if the two ladies can reach basic understanding on some national issues like making the parliament functional. They can at least start a beginning and we can take it ahead and get a fully functional parliament. And if they don't reach understanding, they can at least introduce democratic practice inside their parties. From Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia's speeches, it seems to me that they will try to correct themselves. I don't think they'll act totally like before. It can be seen when they begin election campaign.
Evaluate the anti-corruption drive.
I won't say it has totally failed. It has shaken people who thought they were untouchable to go to jail. People have come to know the real faces of the politicians. However, to fight corruption properly, we need the right institutions like ACC, an ombudsman, and an independent judiciary. Politicians can't do corruption without the help of bureaucrats. Until everyone gets the message that they can get caught for any minor incident of corruption, corruption can't be stopped. But it depends on the political government. People will be able to do nothing in between the two elections unless there is institutional channel to put pressure on the government and parties.
Can the recall system after passing half the tenure of the government be an instrument?
It can be like double-edged sword. It is true that the MPs will remain alert for fear of recalling, but their opponents may take this chance to harass them.
What do you think about Article 70?
Political parties want it to remain there to keep the MPs in line. It needs to be changed, at least relaxed. The constitution experts can sit with the parties to find a solution where they can reach a decision that the MPs can vote against the party, excepting some cases like no-confidence and budget.
Do you support bringing a balance between the power of the president and the prime minister?
I do not support giving power to an indirectly elected president. If we want to give the president some power, he has to be elected. His electoral college needs to be expanded or he can be directly elected by the people.
Is there any confusion about election?
I think there will be election. But I don't see election environment, and it'll not come until emergency is gone. There was also confusion till a few days ago as people were not sure about the participation of the two major parties. The barriers for freedom of expression and assembly need to go. Not only the candidates, the voters will also not feel at ease as long as emergency is in force -- they will not be able to listen to the candidates.