Draft:Neutral Election Assessment Commission

Neutral Election Assessment Commission or NEAC: A new electoral system for neutral elections, whose main qualification will be universal recognition

Tasin Mahdi in August 2024

This is an image of the Parliament building of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, commonly known as the Jatiya Sangsad Bhaban.

The election is one of the most important and effective ways to maintain the democratic system of a country.

This is a proposal for an election system from Dhaka, Bangladesh, led by Tasin Mahdi.

Since our country gained independence in 1971, the electoral system has undergone numerous changes. At times, the country was governed by a President, while at others, by a Prime Minister. Additionally, there were periods of military rule. However, following the fall of the last military ruler, Ershad, in 1990, the major political parties at the time, Awami League and BNP, joined forces to establish a new system known as the caretaker government system.

The primary objective of this system was to conduct fair elections free from partisanship. Leaders and activists from both political parties recognized that partisan elections could not be truly fair. Khaleda Zia, the opposition leader, won the first-ever caretaker election. However, she promptly declared the caretaker government system null and void, citing its unconstitutionality. Faced with a strong movement by the opposition party, Awami League, BNP reluctantly reinstated the caretaker government system. In 1996, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was elected for the first time under the caretaker government system (Constitutionally), garnering majority support from the people who viewed her as a beacon of prosperity.

Subsequently, in 2001, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina gracefully relinquished power to Khaleda Zia through a fair election under the caretaker government, demonstrating her commitment to democratic values. However, recognizing the potential threat posed by the impartial nature of the caretaker government, the ruling party at the time, the BNP, realized that maintaining power for the long term would be impossible without corrupting the system. Hence, in 2001, the then-ruling party and now-opposition, BNP, took the step to raise the retirement age of judges to 67. While this action may appear innocuous, it was part of a larger conspiracy. Increasing the retirement age would pave the way for their loyal judges to ascend to the position of chief advisers to the caretaker government, bypassing the incumbent advisers who rightfully deserved to lead a free and fair system.

However, this endeavor was thwarted by a vigorous protest led by the then opposition, Awami League, and the subsequent disqualification of the Justice from assuming the role of Chief Adviser. This triggered a crisis that resulted in a caretaker government under Fakhruddin Ahmed. Although Fakhruddin headed this caretaker government system, it was Moinuddin Ahmed, the then army chief, who made all the decisions. Following the rise of this one-eleven government, both Awami League and BNP engaged in various activities against it because it sought to diminish the power of both parties. Consequently, both today’s Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, and today’s opposition leader, Khaleda Zia, were arrested one by one, along with hundreds of activists from both parties. While the one-eleven government achieved some minor successes, it held power unconstitutionally for almost two years rather than three months, leading both parties to vehemently oppose the prospect of another one-eleven government.

In 2011, the government at the time declared the caretaker government system unconstitutional, citing the bitter experience of the one-eleven regime. However, the decision to abolish this system did not come without deliberation. The previous government, as of 2024, established a parliamentary committee to determine the necessity of the caretaker government system, inviting the opposition party, BNP, to participate. However, BNP declined to join, displaying a stance that seemed out of place. Despite many members of Awami League advocating for the retention of the caretaker government system, it was ultimately abolished by the Supreme Court due to its unconstitutional nature and the fear of a potential return to military rule through the caretaker government.

Nevertheless, while we certainly do not desire a recurrence of the caretaker government system, we all share the common aspiration for fair elections, irrespective of our ideological differences. In pursuit of this shared goal, we aim to devise a new system that prevents the emergence of autocratic regimes like the one-eleven government and ensures the conduct of fair elections.

In-depth NEAC or Neutral Election Assessment Commission:

It will serve as an impartial commission, with its primary responsibility being the appointment of the chief executive officer of the state or the Prime Minister.

We understand that for a fair election to occur, the commission must not only exist on paper but also be impartial and fully operational, mirroring the functionality of the previous caretaker government system.

A proposal similar to mine was put forth by an individual, advocating for a system without a Prime Minister while retaining the Prime Minister’s cabinet and introducing an Election Affairs Minister. I concur with this proposal not only because the constitution of Bangladesh mandates a permanent president but also because Bangladesh is governed by a Prime Minister, necessitating the position.

Essentially, in this system of governance, the Prime Minister, albeit in name only, would retain their position. Their nominal role would primarily involve preventing a repeat of a one-eleven government and overseeing institutions unrelated to elections, such as the Foreign Ministry and the Ministry of Defense. This arrangement would address the legitimate concerns of the current government regarding a one-eleven incident, as well as the opposition’s concerns regarding fair elections.

Under this system, all key organs of the state involved in the election process would fall under the purview of this impartial commission three or more months prior to the election. This would include the police, RAB, and the Ministry of Home Affairs, among others. Essentially, this system would resemble a caretaker government system, but its primary objective would be to conduct elections under the auspices of the Prime Minister, thereby averting the possibility of another one-eleven scenario.

Certainly, every officer involved in the election process must exhibit conscientiousness. If they fail to perform their duties diligently, the commission will have the authority to discharge them. Additionally, the commission will appoint a Chief Advisor, akin to the caretaker government. This Chief Advisor will be selected by the main political parties through dialogue, similar to the process utilized in the previous caretaker government. Furthermore, in the event of any failure on the part of the commission itself, any participating opposition or political party can file a writ challenging the specific failure. Immediate suspension or cancellation of certain aspects will ensue, pending a determination of whether the alleged failure is substantiated. For instance, if a complaint arises in any constituency and is proven valid, the commissioner of that area will be dismissed, and a re-election will be conducted in the specific constituency. However, since the commission will be formed based on the consensus of all political parties, such issues should ideally be avoided.

Moreover, another rationale behind implementing this system is to diminish the influence of politics within the judiciary. Previously, the ruling BNP attempted to manipulate the judiciary by increasing judges’ retirement age, albeit unsuccessfully. Nevertheless, for elections to be conducted in a fair environment, major political parties must exhibit patience and foster dialogue among themselves. Without such dialogue, progress will be stunted, contrary to the interests of the people. There must be a universal mechanism for dialogue under the government to conduct elections with neutrality and peace.

Additionally, extreme politics characterized by violence and animosity among parties should be eschewed. Instead, there should be a collective effort to reach consensus on various matters for the betterment of the country, such as:

a. Consensus on electing a neutral and non-partisan new president by the current parliament;

b. Consensus on the appointment of the Chief Advisor of the Impartial Commission and more;

c. Consensus building on establishing a permanent dialogue authority.

We must acknowledge that factionalism has been a recurring issue during the tenure of every political party, disrupting elections and impeding progress. This pattern is one from which we must break free. The opposition party, BNP, is no exception, exemplified by the tumultuous period from 2001 to 2006. Therefore, both the government and the opposition party must demonstrate cooperation. Resorting to extreme measures such as blocking highways (as witnessed on October 28, 2023, when BNP blocked main highways) and vandalism only serve to undermine the interests of the people.

Ultimately, we must remember that this country belongs to us — its well-being is our collective responsibility. At the end of the day, we, the citizens, are the ones who will be affected. Those who incite discord from abroad will not face the consequences of their actions. Therefore, it is essential that we exercise patience and carefully consider the implications for our future.