Turmoil in Bangladesh
EVEN though the Bangladesh army has denied it is planning to seize power, the very fact that the media is abuzz with such rumours shows the gravity of the crisis. So far 100 people have been killed this month alone in violence that began last month when opposition leader Khaleda Zia called for a transport shutdown to coincide with the anniversary of last year’s controversial elections. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed made the electoral exercise dubious by amending the constitution and doing away with a neutral government to conduct the polls. No wonder Ms Zia’s Bangladesh National Party and 17 other parties boycotted the vote. Since then, Bangladesh has lurched from crisis to crisis — with widespread violence in evidence. At least 1,000 vehicles have been torched, nearly 10,000 people arrested and security forces have shot dead a dozen people, causing the opposition to allege that the government is following a ‘shoot to kill’ strategy.
Even though both of them have shown lack of restraint in what is billed as the ‘battle of the begums’, the prime minister hasn’t helped matters by pursuing a vindictive policy, which has left other parties with virtually no choice but to join hands with the BNP. A perverse decision by her was to start the so-called war crimes trial and to hang Jamaat-i-Islami leaders for alleged atrocities committed more than four decades ago. This has served to sharpen the polarisation, added to national discord and precipitated conditions resembling a civil war. Ms Zia’s motive behind the countrywide strike is to overthrow the government and force a new election. Given the prime minister’s track record it is highly unlikely that she will accept this. Should the countrywide turmoil continue, not only will the economy suffer, Bangladesh’s democracy could be the loser. The army’s official denial is of no value for a country which has seen repeated military coups since its foundation in 1971. The only choice the two leaders have is to talk and strike a modus vivendi.
Energy plans
THE government has been rightly emphasising new investments in the power sector, but evidence continues to come in that it might have underestimated the extent of the planning required to get large-scale energy investments off the ground. The latest case is the hearing held by Nepra to decide an upfront tariff for LNG power plants in Punjab. The project seeks to attract private investments to generate up to 3,600MW of electricity using regasified LNG in three districts of southern Punjab. Many of the private investors who have shown an interest in the project pointed out during the hearing that fuel supply remains a problem and a key source of uncertainty. Given the large fuel requirements for a power plant, it was inevitable that this question would be raised during the hearing. Many of the investors said that they would need to see a viable gas supply framework before they could commit or even decide on what upfront tariff would be workable for them.
Investors asked what arrangements had been put in place for movement of LNG from the port in Karachi to the plants in southern Punjab, and particularly what storage facilities might exist since expecting a continuous supply of LNG via a pipeline from the port would be unrealistic. Initiating tariff hearings before having decided on a fuel supply framework might have been a little premature, and it indicates that the government, in its haste to show progress on the energy front, is perhaps gliding over important questions simply to keep matters moving along. Something similar happened in the case of the coal-fired power plants, also to be set up in southern Punjab. Earlier this month, at least two power plants scheduled to run on coal were abandoned in favour of gas-based plants.
Difficulties in coal transport from the port to the plant were cited as the main reason for the move. Significant enhancements will be required in the railways’ coal-handling capacity, and port handling as well, to meet the gigantic requirements for coal for so many power plants. An impression is created by these mid-course corrections that the government is moving too fast down the road to commissioning new power plants, and neglecting to carry out a proper feasibility study of all the requirements that will need to be in place before such a large burst of privately owned power-generation capacity can be viable in southern Punjab.
PML-N’s vote-buying fears
AT least the PML-N has proven one thing: when the party leadership is keen enough, electoral reforms can be mooted overnight. Out of the blue, a cabinet meeting on Monday threw out the idea of changing the procedure by which senators are to be elected in a matter of days. The ostensible problem that a sudden constitutional amendment was proposed to resolve? Vote-buying in the provincial assemblies that has jeopardised what the PML-N believes is its rightful share of seats in the Senate. Consider that for a moment: PML-N MPAs are distrusted by the PML-N central leadership to vote for PML-N candidates in a secret ballot and the only solution the PML-N central leadership can come up with is to amend the Constitution to have a public vote by a show of hands. If that is not a damning indictment of all that is wrong with the electoral and political process in the country, then what else possibly could be? Rightfully, the PML-N’s desperate plan has been rejected by the Election Commission of Pakistan and even otherwise, other political parties, while semi-welcoming the PML-N’s idea for similar reasons, have pointed out the problem of converting the single transferrable vote into a vote by a show of hands.
Why though did the PML-N even have to dream up such a scheme? Having fought consecutive general elections and having had every opportunity to select its preferred candidates in the last general election, could not the party have picked candidates who were above vote-selling and tawdry electoral shenanigans? The party may well point out that in several cases, especially in Balochistan, the present cohort of PML-N provincial representatives has individuals who were elected as independents and chose to join the party after it swept to power at the centre. But then, the party would simply be admitting that it opened the door to opportunists in one election and is now trying to bolt the door to keep those opportunists from cashing in on a fresh opportunity at the next election.
The PML-N is, in effect, trying to have it both ways: welcoming opportunists when they vote in the PML-N’s favour and then trying to appeal to higher principles when the electoral winds turn against them. Belated as the PML-N’s recognition of vote-buying and the unwelcome role of money in politics is, it would have been far better if the party had sought to introduce the Senate electoral reforms as part of the much-awaited and long-promised general election reforms. But those latter reforms still appear to be something the PML-N is not really interested in. Also, it would have helped if the PML-N had proposed internal party reforms to improve the quality of party members and encourage a financially cleaner, more professional and less parochial type of candidate. As ever though, the PML-N remains mired in the narrowest, most parochial of approaches.
Published in Dawn February 25th , 2015