Balance of Power (1)

There seems to now be some promise for a fruitful dialogue and a clearer roadmap to elections in December. However, part of the political equation still seems unresolved, so there are still quite a few unexploded land mines to be cleared before we reach the end of the road. I will not speculate on these issues until the current situation is more mature.

One issue, however, that can be explored both through public discussion as well as in the ongoing dialogues, is the issue of the balance of power in the post-election period. There is a rather confused discussion underway about some further constitutional interventions to bring about greater political balance between the president and the prime minister. This, for Bangladesh, seems to be a rather futile debate because it has, off and on, been going on for half a century. The debate has, at least twice, in 1972 and 1991, been resolved in favor of a strong parliamentary system and a symbolic president.

Neither Pakistan nor Bangladesh have ever had any good experience with strong presidents, who have inevitable tended to assume absolute power and treat parliament as a struggle against a powerful and unaccountable president was expected to be resolved through a strong, freely elected parliament headed by a prime minister. This was the essence of the 1972 constitution. But this phase lasted for less than 2 years till the passage of the 4^th Amendment in January 1975. From 1975 to 1991 we had been exposed to a president with absolute power.

The removal of an unaccountable president, through  a mass movement in 1990, should logically have led us to a restoration of the parliamentary system. However, for those with short memories, which seems to include most people, Begum Khaleda Zia, once elected to power in the March 1991 elections, was not at all keen to amend the constitution and restore the parliamentary system. She was more interested to continue with a strong presidency. Her ambitions were frustrated by  the then president, Shahabuddin Ahmed ,who had has the head of a care take government, given Bangladesh one of the fairest elections in our history. President Shahabuddin pointed out to Khaleda Zia and her colleagues that the 1991 elections were contested under the assumption that Bangladesh would return to a parliamentary system. This, indeed, was the commitment of the major political parties to the electorate. If Khaleda Zia wanted to resile from this position, now that her party was clected to office and retain the strong presidency, then Shahabuvvin threatened to dissolve the parliament and call fresh elections. The BNP could then campaign on the basic of retaining the presidential system and if they obtained an electoral mandate for this Khaleda Zia could become president, presumably after contesting a presidential election. The BNP was reluctant to expose itself to another election fought on the mandate of a strong presidency. They agreed to join hands with the Awam League in parliament to repeal the 4^th amendment, and Khaleda Zia took office as prime minister. However, the autocratic impulses which had inspired her to retain the presidential system, extended into her exercise of power as prime minister transformend herself into a president in all but name, building a strong secretariat in the Prime Minister's Office, where all key decisions in her government were referred. As a result, the Parliament, which has been restored with its powers, remained ineffectual. Here, the then opposition, led by the Awarni League, helped to keep Parliament ineffectual by walking out of the house on every possible occasiion and boycotting the house for long periods of time. For the five years of 1991-96, very little of consequence was discussed or decided in Parliament, and all powers were appropriated by this presidential prime minister.