The New Nation - Internet Edition

Khandakar Qudrat-I Elahi

On 11 October 2007, an ACC team interrogated Khaleda Zia to record her side of the story concerning the Global Agro Trade (Private) Company Ltd (GATCO) scam. During the interrogation, Begum Zia denied all charges brought against herself and her son: "Neither me nor my son had any involvement in the deal." She further told the interrogating team that neither she was influenced by anyone nor she exerted any influence on the purchase committee to award the contract to GATCO.

Begum Zia described her approval of the GATCO files as a matter of merely FORMALITY: "GATCO files were placed before me for approval after they were Okayed by the purchase committee". And there was barely any instance, she said, of a prime minister rejecting a proposal that had received approval from the purchase committee.

Perhaps two questions are troubling our minds. First, is Begum Zia guilty as charged? Second, should we believe her testimony?

Although the two questions are intimately related, they are very different. The first question is legal and hence will be decided in the court. If the ACC can produce valid evidence to prove its accusation, then Begum Zia will be tried as charged. This will make those happy who do not like her or BNP. But her supporters, in all probability, will reject the verdict and vow to appeal to higher court to repeal it.

The second question basically concerns public opinion. In this regard, a maxim by philosopher Francis Bacon seems relevant: 'The human understanding, when it has once adopted an opinion, draws all things else to support and agree with it. Although there be a greater number or weight of instances on the other side, it either ignores or rejects them'. Indeed, there are many politicians and celebrated members of our civil society have already formed their opinions and really do not care what evidences and events say. For example, teachers of Dhaka and Rajshahi University already protested against the restrictions imposed upon the two leaders.

However, I am not at all concerned with these questions: Mrs. Zia might very well tell the truth and the court might find ACC's evidences insufficient to convict her.

My concern is about her political status. She has been leading BNP, one of two major political parties in the country, for more than two decades and led the government twice. If she really believes that the prime ministerial job is just a matter of FORMALITY, then we have a very serious problem; she does not understand the gravity of her job.

According to the parliamentary system of democracy, the leader of the political party winning majority seats in general elections forms government and becomes its head. S/he is then charged with the authority of selecting the members of his/her cabinet to run the business of her government and accordingly becomes responsible and accountable for its performance.

Since 1/11, Begum Zia has continued to deny any responsibility of what happened during her rule. She has refused to take responsibility of the activities of her cabinet members as well as her family members. Now, she says that prime ministerial job is merely a matter of formality.

However, one might raise some insinuating issues about her statement. Let's accept, for the sake of argument, that signing the GATCO files was a formality. But was it a formality to appoint Falu and Harris Chowdhury as her advisers? Was it a formality to include, for example, Babar, Moudud Ahmed and Nazmul Huda, in her cabinet?

Since Begum Zia would not accept her supposed responsibity, the question that arises before the nation is to consider whether she should be allowed to lead BNP again. This is a political, not legal, issue and hence must be resolved politically. And this political solution must be based on the principle of democracy.

According to the principle of democracy, citizens are the sovereign authority of the state, which is vested in the institution of government. Thus, citizens are the only rightful authority to choose representatives to exercise this sovereign power. This choice is made through general elections. Although any citizen possessing specified qualifications can contest in an election, the normal practice in parliamentary system is that interested citizens organise political parties and nominate candidates in different constituencies. The party that wins majority seats forms the government.

This practice defines the fundamental role of voters and political parties in democracy. Voters, as the own of the state, make the ultimate choice about who will sit in parliament and form government. On the other hand, the critical role of a political party is to choose its leader and nominate candidates for voters to make that choice. Once the choice is made, voters, theoretically, observe and evaluate the performance of government during its tenure. If they are satisfied with the performance of their choice, the party in power is reelected in the next general elections; otherwise a different selection is made.

The defeated party now incurs a big job, which involves choosing a new leader. For, voters cannot choose the same person who has been removed from the job for poor performance. And this is the principle of democracy. Naturally, the defeated political party will fail in playing its role if it does not choose a new leader.

This is the practice in all advanced democracies: once the party in power fails to get reelected, the party leader resigns clearing the way for appointing a new leader.

This analysis applies equally to Sheik Hasina, the AL leader for about 27 years and one time prime minister of our country.

Unfortunately, this principle of democracy is not practiced in our country, which is the main cause of our political problems- lack of democracy within party, leaders becoming autocratic, criminalization of politics, nomination business etc.

The solution to this pivotal problem is transparent, which is dictated by the principle of democracy. Both AL and BNP must be forced to choose different leader. In other words, the popular "minus-two theory" must be executed.

(The author, a former teacher of Bangladesh Agricultural University, lives in Guelph, Ontario, Canada.)