Evidently, there is no politics in the Bangladesh now. For many years, a kind of controlled politics has been practicing by the ruling party. Opposition politics has been brought into the house. Occasionally there are some government-sanctioned human chains, but no large gatherings are allowed. As a result, the politics of the opposition has been limited to press conferences. COVID 19further limited their politics. Even in this controlled political situation, some surprising things happen from time to time. Most of it is related to social problems. However, even in these incidents, some political issues create surprises. Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and its allies, the main opposition parties in the struggle for the caretaker government, have become increasingly frustrated with the government’s wrath and are finally losing local elections under the ruling party. It was far from their dream to win in last two proceeding national elections. In additional to that, the representatives of the civil society have also started talking about the caretaker government system. At a recent virtual roundtable meeting on good governance organized by a well-regarded civil society organization, SHUJAN, constitutional experts, lawyers, teachers, researchers and civil society representatives highlighted the need for a caretaker government. They said that the country’s democracy is being harmed as people turn away from the polls. As democracy takes on a fictional form, extremist groups can emerge. In order to overcome this situation, the caretaker government system has to be brought back and the citizens have to go to the polls. At the same time, they have termed the current Election Commission (EC) as a depoliticization commission. They said that before we saw the military rulers depoliticize EC by seizing power, now the civilian government has also depoliticized the country with the help of the EC. Within a week of their roundtable meeting, the Left Democratic Alliance also called for new elections under a non-partisan caretaker government. The sudden need for a caretaker government in a peaceful political environment of the country is certainly significant and very important for politics.
There is nothing new to say in our country that elections are never fair and acceptable under a party government. Because there is a lack of trust and confidence between the government and the opposition. The system of caretaker government originated mainly due to mistrust and confidence between the political parties. After the mass movement of the nineties and the resignation of the H. M. Ershad, a kind of complication arose as to under whom the new elections would be held. At that time, all the opposition parties, including the two main opposition parties, Awami League (AL)and BNP, came together and decided that the election would be held under a non-party government and not under any political party. It was from this decision that the theory of caretaker government was discovered. It was unanimously decided that the Chief Justice would be the head of the caretaker government. He will form a caretaker government on a small scale to run the government with eminent persons from different fields. The main task of this government will be to arrange a free, fair, neutral and acceptable election within three months. The party that wins the election held under this government will come to power. In that system of caretaker government, the first caretaker government was formed under the leadership of Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed. It was widely assumed before the election that AL was coming to power. AL was also sure that it was coming to power and, accordingly, the party had formed a shadow cabinet. On the other hand, the BNP assumed that it was sitting in the seat of the opposition. The supporters, starting from the leaders and workers of the party, had the same attitude. The issue was that ALwas coming to power and BNP was becoming an opposition party. At the end of the election, AL lost unexpectedly and unimaginably, and the BNP won. For AL, it was like a thunderbolt without clouds. The leaders of the party were outraged and said that the election was rigged. However, the AL’s demand was not met as the election was considered free, fair and neutral at home and abroad. The party finally accepted it and sat in the seat of the opposition. Later, the issue of caretaker government was added by amending the constitution 1996. Since then, elections have been held every five years under a caretaker government. However, whichever party was in power, it also used tactics to get its loyalists to come to the caretaker government. Even then the elections held under the caretaker government were becoming free, fair and acceptable. Voters also choose their favorite party and candidates by voting in a festive atmosphere. Problems arose with the formation of the caretaker government in 2008. Opposition party of then, AL, raised the issue that the ruling BNP alliance had planted a caretaker government with its loyalists. AL started a violent movement including non-cooperation movement around the country claiming that elections cannot be held under this government. At one stage, the government, known as One-Eleven was formed with the intervention of the military. The military began to run the government from behind the scenes with the caretaker government in front. As soon as this government came to power, it started a kind of depoliticization process. The two main political leaders, Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina, were arrested and placed under house arrest. As well as the military-backed caretaker government introduced the reform in politics with some front-line leaders from the two parties, BNP and AL, and created a minus-two formula to eliminate the two leaders, Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina. When the mainstream leaders and activists of AL and BNP put up strong resistance against it, the military-backed caretaker government released two leaders, Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina and finally arranged the election. In the election held on 29 December 2008, the AL won two-thirds of the seats and secured an absolute majority. The BNP got only 36 seats. As soon as the AL came to power, it took initiative to cancel the caretaker government. Its argument was that democracy would not be institutionalized if elections are held with an unelected government. Democracy must be established through elections held under a party government. The party cited the example of elections held under party governments in various countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom and India. However, the opposition political parties and the civil society did not believe that the election would not be fair under the party government. Due to their opposition, the ruling coalition government formed a committee to seek the views of civil society people, including opposition political parties. Representatives of the main opposition BNP and other political parties and civil society voted in favor of the caretaker government. The Supreme Court of the country ruled against the caretaker government presumably under the influence of the ruling entity but simultaneously it suggested that the next term election could be held under a caretaker government. Following the court decision, caretaker government was dismissed absolutely by the 16thamendment to the Constitution referring to Supreme Court’s verdict. As AL had the absolute majority in the parliament, no parliamentary debate needed to form a decision. It seemed that the decision was already taken outside the parliament. After the abolition of the caretaker government, the election was held on 5 January 2014 under the ruling party amidst strong agitation of the 20-party alliance. The election was unprecedented in history. Before the election, the candidates of the ruling grand alliance were elected unopposed in 154 seats. Most polling stations were empty on polling day. Experts call the election a “vote without a vote”. The election became a matter of question at home and abroad. The ruling party was in the process of justifying it by labeling itas the election to prevent constitutional crisis. Leaders from AL also widely called it an election to uphold the Constitution and said that another acceptable election would be held soon with the participation of all parties. Once the election was over, the government took a firm stand to suppress the opposition movement and chose the path of repression-torture. Thousands of leaders and activists, including top opposition leaders, were arrested and prosecuted. AL government successfully suppressed the postelection movement by oppression, mass-arrest and forced disappearance. Later, all local level elections, including by-elections under the ruling party, were held unilaterally. Although the opposition BNP-led United Front participated in the national elections on December 30, 2018, it was held in a fancy process. The night before the election, ballot boxes were filled in favor of the ruling party AL. The ruling alliance won an absolute majority in the election, while the BNP-led United Front won only 6 seats. Opposition groups called the election a “vote rigging”. Though the election was questioned at home and abroad, the ruling party did not listen to it.
The fact that free, fair, neutral and acceptable elections are not possible under the ruling party in our country has been proved since the abolition of the caretaker government system. Voters have turned away. Even many of the leaders, activists and supporters of the ruling party do not go to the polling stations. They already know that the candidate of the ruling party will be the winner. From the country’s opposition political parties to civil society representatives and conscious citizens, everyone believes that the questionable election under the party government is a threat to democracy as well as pushing the country towards depoliticization. If this situation continues, extremist groups may rise in the country, which will not be good for anyone.
A long way of solidarity: a voice for the voiceless Kashmiris
Every year on February 5 Pakistan observes Kashmir Solidarity Day. It aims to demonstrate Pakistan’s support and solidarity with the people of Indian-occupied Kashmir, and their continuing liberation struggle, and to honor Kashmiri martyrs who sacrificed their lives fighting for Kashmir’s independence.
Every year, on Kashmir Solidarity Day, Pakistan expresses its political, moral, and diplomatic support for the righteous fight of our Kashmiri brothers and becomes its voice in the international forums.
Kashmir’s discord carries historical as well as contemporary events that hinder its political future.
Historical account of the humiliation of Kashmir’s people
The history of conflict dates back to 1947. In the June 3 plan, the princely state offered a choice between India and Pakistan. Maharaja Hari Singh deceived Pakistan and ceded Kashmir to India through a standstill agreement, which sparked an uprising of Pashtun tribesmen and the Hindu nationalists and RSS to organize a program against Muslims, killing between 20,000 and 100,000 Muslims. On October 27, 1947, Indian troops landed in Kashmir to fight against the Pashtuns and the local armies; this led to the first India-Pakistan war. During the war, India’s prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, promised a referendum: “The fate of Jammu and Kashmir is ultimately decided by the people; the pledge we have given is not only to the people of Kashmir but also to the world.” “We will not and cannot back out of it.”
India referred the dispute to the United Nations a little more than two months later. A resolution passed on August 13, 1948, asking both nations to withdraw their forces; once that happened, a referendum was to be held, allowing the people of Kashmir to decide their political future. But the Indian troops were never withdrawn, and the referendum never happened. On January 1, 1949, the ceasefire was agreed upon, and Kashmir became a disputed territory. Over the next 70 years, India and Pakistan fought three wars over Kashmir.
In Indian-administrated Kashmir, India maintains around 600,000 troops in Kashmir, who have committed human rights violations like rape, torture, and enforced disappearances that continue today. The number of people killed in Kashmir is estimated to be between 50,000 and 100,000, which shows the ruthlessness of the so-called largest democracy in the world.
Situation after the abolishment of articles 370 and 35A
On August 5, 2019, the Indian government abrogated Article 370 and Article 35A of the Indian Constitution, which granted Jammu and Kashmir a special status and autonomy. The Indian government enforced a curfew, disrupted communication connections, arrested political leaders, and deployed extra soldiers in the area, generating widespread resentment and demonstrations.
Since the abolition of Articles 370 and 35A, human rights abuses and violations in Kashmir have increased significantly, with claims of widespread mass arrests, torture, and extrajudicial executions by Indian security personnel. The Indian government has also restricted freedom of speech, assembly, and the press, making it impossible for citizens to openly express their thoughts and report on the state of the area.
In addition, the Indian government has been accused of fostering demographic changes in the area through the settlement of Hindu migrants, which has resulted in a fall in the percentage of the Muslim population and degradation of the Kashmiri people’s distinctive cultural and religious identity.
International human rights groups have shown concern about the situation in Kashmir and demanded an independent investigation into the reported human rights breaches and abuses. About 87 civilians have been killed by the Indian forces since the abrogation of Article 370. The international community has also advocated for a peaceful settlement to the issue that takes the Kashmiri people’s rights and interests into consideration.
The situation in Kashmir remains severe, and the continuous violence and human rights violations continue to provide the international community with a formidable task. The region’s political future is still unknown, and a sustainable resolution to the war has not yet been found.
Pakistan’s Advocacy for Kashmir
Pakistan has made several attempts to resolve the ongoing conflict in Kashmir and has sought international backing for its stance on the matter. Pakistan has repeatedly discussed the Kashmir issue at the United Nations and other international forums, stressing the need for a peaceful settlement of the conflict based on the self-determination principle and the right of the Kashmiri people to choose their destiny. Pakistan has also made diplomatic attempts to garner international support for its viewpoint, notably via the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Non-Aligned Movement.
Pakistan has also endeavored to provide political, diplomatic, and moral assistance for the Kashmiri resistance movement. India has accused Pakistan of financing terrorism in the area based on information that Pakistan supports separatist organizations in the region. Pakistan has denied these allegations and advocated for a peaceful settlement according to UN Resolution 47 (1948), which calls for a ceasefire, and UN Resolution 51 (1948), which calls for a plebiscite to be held in the region to determine the will of the Kashmiri people.
Despite these attempts, the situation in Kashmir remains unresolved, and a permanent resolution to the conflict has not yet been reached. The issue remains a significant source of conflict between India and Pakistan and a problem for the international community.
Kashmir’s political future remains uncertain and is the subject of ongoing discussion and negotiation between India and Pakistan, as well as international engagement.
Currently, the territory is split between India and Pakistan, with India administering the greater part and Pakistan the smaller. The Line of Control (LoC), which divides the two managed territories, has often been the scene of tension and bloodshed.
There have been appeals for a peaceful conclusion that takes the rights and interests of the Kashmiri people into consideration. Some have suggested the concept of “self-determination,” in which the people of Kashmir would have the right to choose their destiny through a referendum or a negotiated solution between India and Pakistan.
Kashmir’s political future is unpredictable and vulnerable to the continuous dynamics of the war as well as the shifting political and strategic objectives of the major regional countries. The international community still has a big part to play in finding a solution, and India, Pakistan, and the other countries in the area are likely to have to be involved and support any lasting solution.
Sri Lankans deserve a clean break from the past
The decision of former president Maithripala Sirisena to run for president pits two unpopular, establishment candidates against one another. With both Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe involved in past political turmoil and the current economic crisis, Sri Lankans deserve a clean break.
While a presidential election cannot be held until 2024, the Sri Lankan Electoral Commission recently announced local elections for February. With no popular mandate and as the only member of his party, President Wickremesinghe is expected to face an embarrassing defeat in the poll, but it is unlikely to bring down the government.
The announcement that Sirisena would run as president comes at a pivotal time for Sri Lankans.
Wickremesinghe warned this week that the Sri Lankan economy could contract by up to 4% this year, after shrinking 11% last year.
Last year, the island nation descended into turmoil, with an economic collapse leading to its worst crisis in years. Foreign currency shortages, runaway inflation and a recession left the government unable to make debt repayments and left Sri Lankans desperately short of food and fuel.
This led to unprecedented unrest, particularly in the capital Colombo, resulting in the deaths of protesters and police, with hundreds more injured or detained. The protests culminated in the storming and occupation of the presidential palace, forcing Gotabaya Rajapaksa to flee the country, with Wickremesinghe replacing him as president.
Sirisena has a chequered history in Sri Lankan politics.
Sirisena was part of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s cabinet before defecting to the opposition and winning a surprise election victory against Rajapaksa in 2015.
As President, Sirisena formed a close partnership with Wickremsinghe, appointing him Prime Minister, before the two spectacularly fell out. This culminated in the sacking of Wickremesinghe in 2018, replacing him with Mahinda Rajapaksa. At the time, Wickremesinghe claimed that the move was “unconstitutional”.
This led to a constitutional crisis and power struggle between Wickremesinghe, Rajapaksa and Sirisena, with the former President dissolving parliament and calling snap elections. Sirisena then decided to not seek re-election, leaving office in early 2019. He was replaced as president by Mahinda’s brother, Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
Recently, the Sri Lankan supreme court ordered Sirisena and several other top government, police and intelligence officials to pay millions of rupees in compensation to the victims of the 2019 Easter bombings in Colombo. The court found that Sirisena, as former president, ignored multiple warnings about an imminent terrorist attack weeks before the deadly event took place.
But Wickremesinghe is also no saint.
Wickremesinghe, a six-time prime minister, won a parliamentary vote with the backing of the Rajapaksa’s Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna party to replace Gotabaya Rajapaksa in July 2022. For this reason, he is accused of owing his position to the family.
Upon gaining the presidency, Wickremesinghe immediately cracked down on protesters, condemning the protests as “against the law” and calling protesters “fascists”. Under his watch, more than 140 protesters have been arrested and its leaders driven into hiding.
In August 2022, the United Nations condemned his government’s crackdown on protesters. The UN also criticised the repeated use of emergency measures, such as curfews, calling them a “misuse of emergency measures”.
The president has also been accused of delaying this poll, claiming the economically crippled country cannot afford to spend 10 billion rupees on a local election. However, the election commission decided to proceed despite the president’s request. Nonetheless, this raises doubts about Wickremesinghe’s respect for the democratic process.
What Sri Lankans desperately need is political stability and good economic management so the country can dig its way out of its worst crisis since independence.
Sirisena and Wickremesinghe offer neither. The former is struggling to finalise a bailout deal with the International Monetary Fund and both are notorious for poor political decision making and unpopular with a public desperate for change.
Therefore, Sri Lankans are faced with two establishment candidates who only offer more of the same.
The solution, at least for the time being, is for Wickremesinghe to call a presidential election so the next president has a clear mandate by the people. This will assist in forming a stable government and in bailout negotiations with the IMF.
Power also needs to be decentralised through ambitious political reforms that allow for wider participation and decision making in parliament. While, admittedly, this would be difficult under both Sirisena and Wickremesinghe, it is the first step in dealing with corruption and nepotism in Sri Lankan politics.
Presidential candidates serious about solving the countries problems also need to focus on key issues, such as rebuilding the economy, accountability for human rights and rebuilding political integrity and public trust.
Only once this is achieved, and Sri Lanka has shed itself of its dysfunctional political past, will it be able to recover.
A Hybrid Political System for Pakistan: A Proposal
The political system of Pakistan is an amalgamation of Islamic, British, and Indian influences, shaped by a multifaceted array of religious, ethnic, and regional factors, making it a culturally rich and ever-changing landscape. Pakistan is renowned for its powerful military establishment, which has traditionally wielded significant influence in determining its political direction. The nation’s political history is characterized by cycles of military rule, punctuated by several coups, followed by phases of democratic rule, though the military has continued to exert a significant degree of influence in the country’s politics. Furthermore, Pakistan has had to contend with the pernicious threat of extremism, with various militant groups operating within its borders and perpetrating terrorist attacks, which have destabilized the nation’s political, social, and economic stability.
This article aims to shed light on the challenges faced by the political system in Pakistan, specifically concerning the current political turmoil the country is experiencing. It also suggests a potential solution to stabilize the system and bring about a revolution in the way politics is conducted in Pakistan
The challenges faced by Pakistan’s democracy are compounded by the elite classes’ actions. The country is currently facing significant upheaval, which can be attributed to several factors. The lack of solid democratic institutions, frequent military takeovers, and the involvement of powerful military and civilian elites are among the underlying causes of the country’s political instability. Additionally, ethnic and regional conflicts, poverty, and economic growth issues further exacerbated political instability. The ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, as well as political unrest in neighboring countries, have also had an impact on the country. Furthermore, Pakistan’s history of military control, political corruption, and a lack of a deeply ingrained democratic culture have all contributed to the volatility in its political system.
The current political quagmire that plagues Pakistan is multifaceted, primarily stemming from a dearth of political acumen and a paucity of commitment on the part of leaders to prioritize the exigencies of the populace over their own personal and factional interests. This has led to a diminution of public confidence in the political system and government officials. Furthermore, the military’s prolonged political intervention and sway history has exacerbated a lack of democratic stability and accountability. Another critical conundrum that has impeded the country’s political evolution is the preponderance of corruption and nepotism in every government agency, rendering it difficult for citizens to repose trust in government officials. As a result, there is a burgeoning loss of faith in institutions of all varieties, with people losing trust in the government, corporations, and political leaders.
Furthermore, the failure of successive governments to address the issue of corruption has further undermined public trust in the political system. The permeation of corrupt practices in every government institution has made it difficult for citizens to have faith in government officials, leading to a general disillusionment with the political system. Additionally, the lack of transparency and accountability in government operations has enabled corrupt officials to operate with impunity, further eroding the public’s trust in the political system. The aforementioned issues have resulted in a political climate marked by a lack of stability and continuity, hindering the country’s economic and social development. It is imperative that the political class and other stakeholders work towards addressing these issues to ensure that the political system can effectively serve the people’s needs and promote the country’s long-term stability and prosperity.
Proposing A New Way to get stability in Political System?
A hybrid political system combines characteristics of many political systems, such as democracy and autocracy. Two examples are a semi-presidential system, which combines a prime minister and a president, and a federal system, which combines a central government with regional administrations. Hybrid systems can also include components of other kinds of democracy, such as a parliamentary system combined with a robust presidential system. These systems are frequently viewed as a compromise between competing political ideologies or as a means of balancing the strengths and shortcomings of various systems
If the official replaces the current political system with a hybrid one, it could be very beneficial. One of the main advantages of a hybrid system is that it allows for a balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of government. In a presidential system, the executive branch is separate from the legislative branch, with the president having a lot of power. In a parliamentary system, however, the executive branch is accountable to the legislative branch. In a hybrid system, the executive branch has some independence from the legislative branch but is still responsible for it. This helps to prevent too much power from being concentrated in one person or group and also helps to protect citizens’ rights and to avoid abuse of power.
An additional benefit of implementing a hybrid system is that it may facilitate more efficient decision-making by leveraging the strengths of both presidential and parliamentary systems. In a presidential system, the separation of powers can result in stalemates and prolonged indecision, while in a parliamentary system, the government can swiftly collapse if it loses the legislature’s support. A hybrid system, on the other hand, can offer a balance of stability and agility, allowing for more prompt decision-making while maintaining the accountability of the executive branch. Furthermore, considering Pakistan’s history of military involvement in politics, a hybrid system can provide a mechanism to hold the military accountable to the civilian administration and reduce the likelihood of military intervention.
It is imperative to acknowledge that a hybrid system may not be the ultimate remedy for all of Pakistan’s issues, and its successful operation would require meticulous planning and execution. Nevertheless, this system could potentially provide a glimpse of sustained stability in Pakistan’s political landscape, and it is incumbent upon the authorities to consider this system as a viable option to circumvent further obstacles.
India rejected the collective West’s destructive attempts to polarise the world order
Taken together, the speeches made by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar at the Voice of...
February 19: An anti-interventionist coalition to March to White House from Lincoln Memorial
On February 19, Washington, DC, will witness a protest against the war in Ukraine that marks a sharp departure from...
Education For All – Our Investment in Humanity
Authors: Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown and Yasmine Sherif Millions of children are experiencing a world being ripped apart. Armed conflicts,...
The suffocating economy of Iran
Iran’s economy is on a roller coaster. The past year saw a dramatic rise in inflation rates and a historic...
The Irony of Indonesian Media Disaster Communication
Indonesia occupies the fourth position as the most populous country in the world, with a projected population that will continue...
Xi Jinping’s visit to Russia and America’s hostile policy towards China-Russia rapprochement
The visit of Chinese President “Xi Jinping” to Russia will be organized, which will most likely take place after the...
Prospects of Vietnam’s Economic Growth in 2023
The ongoing war in Ukraine and increasing commodity prices across the world have impacted the developing countries. Countries in Asia...
Science & Technology4 days ago
New discoveries and scientific advances from around the world
Economy4 days ago
Pakistan’s elite and the current economic crisis
Middle East3 days ago
The role of Guangdong Province in the Egypt – China relationship
World News3 days ago
NATO tanks for Ukraine provoke contradictions in the alliance
Economy4 days ago
Guangdong special economic zones at China
Urban Development4 days ago
A City-Led Climate Resilience
International Law4 days ago
Shaping a 21st-century world order amounts to a patchwork
Intelligence2 days ago
India’s Strategic Use of TTP to Undermine Pakistan’s Stability