HARTAL- IS IT ONLY BAD OR IS IT TO COUNTER WORSE AND WORST --- G M QUADER, MP

Hartal is harmful for National economy. Hartal harms low income group most. It creates environment which makes everything including future of the Nation uncertain. Lots of injuries, disablement and even death occur due to Hartal related violence.

Hartal is bad for people. It is bad for the country. Hartal is bad for the future of the Nation. More or less everybody these days talk of Hartal in the above language. Hartal is termed in a word as BAD.

I would like you to try a rethinking on the issue. Hartal is definitely bad. But has it not been used historically to counter against more bad or worse and worst. What had been making the people to take up a bad course like Hartal so far? Has recently the situation changed.

Hartal as a political programme was first introduced in the undivided Indian sub continent by Mahatma Gandhi as part of a non-violent, non-cooperation movement against the colonial rule of the British. He called it a prayer day and asked all to pray at home and abstain from their day to day work in protest against some actions of the government or to press home some demand of the people. Hartal was supposed to be non-violent and used to be observed almost spontaneously. The idea was to communicate the message of protest and demand of the people to the government and force the government to accept the same.

Why Hartal was became necessary to communicate to the government views from the peoples’ side and for forcing the government to accept the same. The reasons were, 1) There was no formal way of effective communication from the people to the government, 2) People had no means of participating in the running of day to day affair of the country, 3) Final accountability of the government to the people was also absent as there was no means that the people could change the government if they feel it to be necessary.

Under the circumstances Hartal became the only option for the people for communication of their demand and also for pressurizing the government to accept the same, by paralyzing the government. Government became paralyzed during Hartal period as all economic activities of the country including all machinery of the government used to stop functioning.

In other words Hartal to a great extent helped establishing accountability of the government to the people. Or we can say Hartal had to be introduced as an informal way of making the government accountable to the people in the absence of any formal means of doing so.

Now the question comes after the fall of British colonial rulers and the creation of independent India and Pakistan could we abandon the Hartal programme. The answer is no. Till today Hartal is one of the most effective means of expressing peoples’ desires to the government and for compelling them to accept the same.

Why we could not abandon the Hartal programme so long? Has the precondition for which Hartal was unavoidable still exists? Nobody will deny it existed till prior to the liberation war of 1971. Hartal was frequently used during the anti government movement against the then Pakistani regime, which had its peak during 1969-70 and early `71, for pressing home the demands of the people of Bangladesh.

There may be some controversy whether the condition existed after the independence of Bangladesh. But when we see during the period starting from 1971 till today, peoples’ voices need to be heard by the government through Hartal and the peoples’ desires are fulfilled only when government could be forced by paralyzing the country through Hartal, do we need to doubt about the necessity of Hartal? Our history shows no mentionable public desires could be fulfilled without anti-government movement where Hartal played the most effective and vital role, so far. Without going further detail about all the regimes after liberation let us examine the present context and evaluate whether justified precondition for calling Hartal still exists.

In Bangladesh today is there any formal way of communication between the government and the people? The answer is yes. There is parliament formed by the elected representative of the people. Government with Prime Minster as its head is constituted from a portion of the Parliament Members from amongst the party which commands majority in the Parliament. Peoples’ views are supposed to be formally ventilated to the government inside the Parliament house through their representatives.

Now the question is how effective is the communication? The answer is negative, not very effective. Question is why?

Prime Minister is generally the leader of the ruling party and is definitely the leader of the ruling party’s parliamentary party, which has the majority of the parliamentarians in their side. As per our present political culture there is very little democratic practice inside all the major political parties. What ever Prime Minister decides or desires, almost automatically that becomes the decision of the ruling party and becomes binding on the part of the parliament members of that party to agree to that officially, even if they disagree in person. It is so for the parliament members, as our constitution made it almost impossible for any MP to disagree with his/her party’s decisions (in the parliament) as that would mean he/she would loose membership in the parliament.

Our political culture as mentioned earlier made the Prime Minister all powerful to take any decision and also to impose it to the ruling party’s parliament members that allows the prime minister to get his/her decisions (with the exception of constitutional amendments, which needs two third majority to be passed in the parliament) passed by the parliament with majority vote. As mentioned earlier the ruling party commands the majority at the parliament and as such all the decisions are passed exactly as per desire of the Prime Minister.

In our system parliament instead of becoming a place to ventilate peoples’ views on the state affaires and also of taking account of the government activities by the people through their elected representatives has actually turned into a place of useless discussion on predicated issues to legitimize the desire of the Prime Minister. In short, it is functioning no more than a rubber stamp symbol to provide legal coverage to the deeds and desires of the Prime Minister and his/her government in all state matters ignoring the views and desires of the parliament members. Since the decisions on all the issues are more or less predetermined, the government side and the speaker do not feel it necessary to allow enough time for discussion on issues. Members of Parliament for the same reason at times are discouraged to ventilate views of the people they represent.

Our present system and political culture allows the government to restrict the views of the people to be expressed in the parliament and also to ignore the same. Present government has been taking full advantage of the above privilege. I do not think there exists a single mentionable example where the views of the opposition expressed in parliament have been accepted by the government.

Parliament does not have any coercive power to force the government to accept or reject any views or desires of the people as against that of the government or to be precise of the Prime Minister. As such, the present system has made the parliament too weak to take accountability of the day to day affaires of the government.

Now the question comes does the government have ultimate accountability to the people which means can the people change the government if they desire to do so.

I would say, in our present system it could be very difficult. There exist enough scopes for putting barricades to free and fare election by the party in power and for manipulating the election results.

Our system of government is half parliamentary and half presidential. The conducting of election and up to the formation of government we follow the parliamentary form. But after the formation of the government the executive power is exercised by the Prime Minister exactly in a similar manner as the President of a Presidential form of government does. As mentioned earlier, parliament ceases to play any effective role as soon as the Prime Minister is elected by the parliament and he/she forms the government by choosing ministers.

It would make practically no difference if the parliament in our present system at that very moment after formation of government be declared closed till the next election. Only few minor amendments in the constitution may be required to give the process a legal shape. It would have no impact as such on the day to day activities of the government as is being followed presently.

As already mentioned the system allows the Prime Minister to assume absolute power. This gives PM the authority to run the country in an autocratic way as per his/her desire ignoring the parliament, similar to the president of a presidential system. But in the presidential system the president has to go to the entire country for his/her reelection. That provides scope for the people of the country as a whole to take account of his/her performance during the entire tenure of his stay, which may be considered as ultimate accountability of the president to the people. But the Prime Minister of our system need not have to seek reelection from the voters of the entire country like the president. He/she would be evaluated during election by the voters of only one of the three hundred constituencies of the country.

Prime Minister holds absolute power and authority of the government without any day to day accountability to the people of the country through their representative in the parliament. As such it is much easier for a prime minister to influence the election results in his/her constituency and also in the constituencies of the other ruling party parliament members by distributing government money and other benefits and by manipulating government officials and authorities. Prime minister is also in a position to withdraw similar facilities from opposition party parliament members and can create impediments to normal functioning of opposition political parties.

Government in the absence of any formal means of prevention is in a position to use public money and government property, World Bank loans and Red Crescent facilities as if those are ruling party property to bribe the voters of this poverty stricken country to manipulate election results in their favor. Ruling part with the patronization of government authority and facilities in a position to organize groups of armed youths as party cadres who could be utilized to forcibly capture vote centers and votes to rob the results in their favor. Government is also in a position to create vested interest groups in the officials connected to the election and may use them to manipulate election results.

Is the present government trying to use the above undue privileges? The answer is affirmative from many responsible persons connected with politics and also with the government bureaucracy. If it is true, then what is the chance of a free and fare election in which peoples’ views would be reflected without any possible distortion.

If the ruling party could do all the above manipulations and win a reelection with the help of the same, could we say that there would be ultimate accountability of the government to the people. Ultimate accountability of the government is ensured only when it can be changed according to the desire of the people.

Under the circumstances, we must not ignore the prospect of perpetuating power by the ruling party bypassing free and fare election which may ultimately turn the country into an informal one party system, with few government sponsored opposition parties. If that scenario becomes real any day, could it be called a democratic system at all or an autocracy under the disguise of democracy?

That sort of environment in a country like us, can create atmosphere to justify military take over. Alternately, extreme or fanatic political parties with terrorism on its agenda may get popular support because of more effectiveness of their politics against the existing political system. Both this options would put an end to whatever little democracy we have now. This would also make the society unstable & chaotic with prosperity moving further away from the people of the country.

Coming back to the issue of Hartal again. So we see the precondition under which Hartal became the most effective way of ventilating peoples’ view and of pressurizing the government to accept the same, still exists.

However, Hartal was meant to be a non-violent protest of the people which was to be observed spontaneously. Hartal clearly shows the superior strength of the wishes of the mass. It also establishes beyond any doubt that people are the ultimate source of all political power. As such, the program should reflect by and large the wishes of the people and should be used accordingly. It should not be forced upon people by violent means. But we should also keep in mind that violence cannot be totally ruled out in a program like Hartal. An at times young or immature political activist is swept away by emotion and indulges in violence. That could not be prevented during even Mr. Ghandhi’s Hartal program’s. But Hartal related violence these days generally occurs when ruling party activists start using violence to foil the program of the opposition.

It is seen that even the peaceful programs of the opposition parties to apprise the people about their views and activities are foiled by force by the government with the help of law enforcing agencies and/or ruling party activists.

Electronic media are either owned or are effectively monitored by the government. The press and publications are controlled with the help of Department of Film & Publication. Through this department all the advertisements and other financial benefits of the governmentt are distributed to the media. As such they can provide financial and other benefits to the press or withdraw the same to allure or to compel them to follow the ruling party line.

Under the circumstances, opposition political parties are left with very few options but to resort to violence and create an atmosphere of panic in place of an environment of consensus to make the Hartal successful which in effect destroys the image of Hartal as a means to express peoples desire.

Let us now examine what could be done to stop Hartal. So far we have seen Hartal becomes necessary for the people to make effective communication with the government in the absence of any alternate formal means to do so. Hartal is needed to force the government to listen to the peoples’ voice and to act as per their desire when people feel they do not have any other choice to achieve their said goal. As such if our political environment and our political system could be modified in a way that government act as per desire of the people, be close and transparent enough to know the people’s mind and to be known to the people; also, if the people could change the government as and when they feel it necessary, there would not be any necessity of a program like Hartal.

With that end in view the following recommendations are proposed:
1) Constitution of Bangladesh should be amended to make the system of government to be of true parliamentary form, where parliament would be in real sense the centre of all activities of the state. In this respect, 10th schedule of the Constitution of India may become a possible guideline to be followed. In that provisions are there to form a split group of a political party if the dissident members consist of not less than one third of the total number of parliament members of that party.
2) The constitutional provision for election in the reserves seats for women should be amended to make provision for direct election. Present system allows the majority party in the parliaments who are also the ruling party, to gain bonus seats in the parliament. This gives the Prime Minister more strength against an already weak parliament. Scope of PM to ignore the parliament becomes wider with these additional seats received automatically as a majority party.
3) It is to be ensured and encouraged that democracy is practiced in running the affairs of all major political parties.
4) Press and media coverage should be evenly distributed so that views of the opposition political parties could also be ventilated properly. Government should not use the state run radio, television etc to serve the purpose of ruling party only. Government should not use financial benefits provided in the form of government advertisement for controlling the media and for influencing their views.
5) In order to create congenial atmosphere to ensure free and fare election appropriate measures should be taken to stop (i) use of public fund as ruling party fund, (ii) use of government authority to build arms cadre of the ruling party, (iii) use of executive power of the government to distribute undue favor to government officials, in respect of promotion, posting and new appointment to government services to look after partisan interest.

There is doubt whether the above recommendations or something similar to that could be made acceptable to the government without resorting to political programs like Hartal. As such I am afraid the need for Hartal can not be totally ruled out in future to prevent the country from going into total autocratic system or chaos.

To force the government to work in favor of the people and not in their personal and partisan interest, Hartal would remain the only effective means; so long government remains free of any formal way of accountability to the people. As such, alternate to Hartal is to establish an accountable government.