The Washington Post is carrying a letter to the editor from Sheikh Mohammed Belal, a minister at the embassy in Washington DC. It contains several falsehoods.
We have covered the Bangladeshi non-party caretaker government in detail as it is a constitutional innovation that has fallen prey to the unconstitutional behaviour of the Bangladeshi President, Iajuddin Ahmed.
The letter starts:
The Jan. 25 news story "Bangladesh Military Accused of Stalling on Elections" contained broad judgments that are a trifle unfair. What really happened leading up to Jan. 11 was that the political turmoil had reached the point that it had brought civic life to a standstill. It had devastated the socioeconomic fabric of Bangladesh. Chaos was reigning. Conditions were ripe for the country to become a breeding ground of extremism and terrorism. The world could not afford an ungovernable entity of the size of Bangladesh (145 million people), with all the negative implications. The Jan. 11 emergency proclamation pulled the country back from the brink of disaster. The declaration was within the framework of Bangladesh's constitution. Subsequent governmental actions have been on a constitutional track. The proclamation has had overwhelming support from the armed forces, a business community battered by continuous strikes and from Bangladeshi civil society.That is a standard state of emergency claim, only an Aristotlean 'best man' or Cincinnatus could overcome the chaos by adopting emergency powers and saving the constitution by burning it. It should be noted that the Chief Advisor in the caretaker government is supposed to be a judge. Not the president. Ahmed skipped judges in order to make himself the Chief Advisor and then justified it by claiming it was a state of emergency, forcing him to act in this manner. I think it is fair to say he acted unconstitutionally. Since then he has appointed a former banker into the role but a state of emergency still exists across Bangladesh. The letter continues:
It is understood that the caretaker government that assumed office after Jan. 11 has a responsibility different from others before it. Unless it can successfully undertake reforms, some of which are structural, it will not be able to create the level playing field that is a prerequisite for holding a free, fair and credible election with the participation of candidates from all major political parties.The whole point of caretaker governments is that they do not enact policy, they have no legitimacy because an election has been called, and the government that is formed after the election - with popular backing - is the only succesor government that has the popular will and legitimacy to enact policy. The Bangladeshi constitution is very explicit about this. Belal is arguing that this caretaker government is not a caretaker but an 'emergency government' and has full governmental powers. The constitution contains in section 58(1):
(1) The Non-Party Care-taker Government shall discharge its functions as an interim government and shall carry on the routine functions of such government with the aid and assistance of persons in the services of the Republic; and, except in the case of necessity for the discharge of such functions its shall not make any policy decision.So the caretaker government is acting unconstitutionally by implementing policy, and arguably this includes operating under a legal state of emergency. Certainly, several political leaders from the two major parties were rounded up under that emergency and imprisoned. This whole process has not been good and has smacked of Ahmed being willing to ignore the constitution, placing doubts on his political honesty as a ceremonial president, as well as the political motives of the caretaker government. The purpose of a the non-party caretaker government was that it would take politics out of elections and stop interfering in the electoral process by political parties willing to influence the outcome by tampering or coercion. Instead it has been a method for the President to insert himself into politics, though, he had to ignore the constitution to do so.
