What is Bangladesh Model?
 

A lot has been discussed about "Bangladesh model". I am here going to explore the Bangladesh model.

[B][SIZE="4"]Background[/SIZE][/B]

[B][SIZE="3"]2006–2008 Bangladeshi political crisis: [/SIZE][/B]
According to Bangladesh's unique electoral system, a caretaker government is entrusted to oversee the national parliamentary elections, which must be held within ninety days of dissolving a parliament. The constitution stipulates that the last retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court lead this caretaker government as its Chief Advisor (with status of Prime Minister) and would appoint a maximum of ten advisors (with status of ministers) to assist him. The caretaker government runs all the state's affairs during these ninety days, including conducting the nationwide parliamentary elections. However, during this time, the Defense Ministry's charge is transferred to the country's President, who assumes the role of Commander-in-Chief.

At the end of BNP's 2001-2006 term, Awami League accused BNP of politicising the top levels of civil government as well as the election commission, judiciary and the command of the Army, claiming that a free and fair poll would not be possible unless mass changes were brought about in the administration. They also questioned the immediate past Chief Justice's neutrality and accused him of being biased towards BNP.

Amid protests and violence led by Awami League right after the term of BNP ended in October 2006, the former Chief Justice K M Hasan declined to take the job of Chief Advisor (CA). As a final option in the constitution, President Iajuddin Ahmed himself took the role, in addition to his own responsibilities, and appointed an advisory council.

Awami League, although wary of Iajuddin as the CA, agreed to take part in the elections but also demanded that he bring mass changes in the administration to free it from BNP's politicisation. They also demanded that a new and accurate voter list be compiled. The allegation that the Voter list was flawed has been somewhat supported by EU's election observers.[citation needed] Awami League also accused Iajuddin of being a puppet of BNP and on January 3, 2007 finally declared that they would boycott the election and violence broke out across the country.

[B][SIZE="3"]Cessation of election monitoring operations: [/SIZE][/B]

On January 11, 2007, the United Nations and the European Union suspended their election monitoring operations because they felt that conditions for a credible vote did not exist.[2] In a statement, the EU said, "The European Commission has decided to suspend its Election Observation Mission (EOM) to Bangladesh covering the parliamentary elections on 22nd January. The European Commission has called back the long-term observers already on the ground, and will not deploy the other phases of its observation mission, which was due to be led by MEP Alexander Graf Lambsdorff."[3] A spokesperson for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated that "The political crisis in Bangladesh has severely jeopardized the legitimacy of the electoral process. The announced cancellation of numerous international observation missions is regrettable. The United Nations has had to suspend all technical support to the electoral process, including by closing its International Coordination Office for Election Observers in Dhaka."[4]

[B][SIZE="3"]State of emergency and Interim Government[/SIZE][/B]
On the same day as the UN and EU withdrawal from the election procedures, chief advisor of the caretaker government Iajuddin Ahmed (the current president) announced a state of emergency in Bangladesh after weeks of political crisis over the upcoming elections, implementing a late night to early morning (11 p.m. to 5 a.m.) curfew. It has been suggested that that was in fact a form of coup.[5] Within hours of the state of emergency declaration, President Ahmed announced his resignation as chief advisor, as well as the postponement of the scheduled election. Prior to his own resignation, he accepted those of nine of the ten advisors of the caretaker government. The remaining advisor on the board Fazlul Haque was then appointed by President Ahmed as the interim chief advisor. "It is fairly apparent that it was done under pressure from the army because of the threat that the country could lose its peacekeeping role," said analyst Zafar Sobhan, a columnist for the leading Daily Star newspaper.[6] On January 12, 2007, the former

[B]Bangladesh Bank governor Fakhruddin Ahmed was sworn in as the new chief advisor. Mr. Ahmed appointed five advisors on January 13 to form the new interim government. The curfew was lifted once the police received reports of Fakruddin Ahmed being named the head of the caretaker government.[7] The state of emergency, however, continues to be in effect until further notice, and it suspends some basic rights provided by the constitution, such as the freedom of movement, assembly, and speech.[8][/B]

[B]New Election[/B]
After 2 years of interim government, in 2008 election Sheikh Hasina's "Grand Alliance" won Bangladesh's election. The alliance received a commanding majority of 255 out of 300 seats, thrashing opponent and fellow former PM Khaleda Zia's party, which received only 33. It was unclear whether the defeated party would protest.

Democratic rule returns to Bangladesh as Awami League leader Sheikh Hasina is sworn in as PM for a second time.

Please add some valuable information.

Inching towards Bangladesh model?
 

EDITORIAL : Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani while talking to the press at the Prime Minister s House on Thursday stated that no one should have any illusions, neither will the army take over nor does it want to, those dissatisfied with us should wait for the next election and vote us out then.
He added that those who were treating the army as distinct from the federal government were living in a fool s paradise and added let them live there. If the Prime Minister s objective was to quell speculation that surfaced in the aftermath of the statements by the leader of a critical coalition partner, MQM s Altaf Hussain, or to convince analysts cognisant of the last sixty-three years of the history of government in this country then it is doubtful if he succeeded.

Be that as it may, there is general acknowledgement that no government, especially a cash-strapped one like ours that is under a rigid International Monetary Fund (IMF) programme, could have coped single-handedly with a natural disaster on the scale that we witnessed during the last six weeks. There is also general agreement that the army does come in the aid of civil institutions during times of a natural disaster as it has the necessary logistics to carry out rescue and relief operations. Thus no one can challenge the Prime Minister s assertions in theory. However, an entirely different picture may emerge if one considers general public sentiment with respect to the performance of the present government during the crisis unleashed by the devastating floods.

Thus what the Prime Minister conveniently ignored was ample evidence of simmering public discontent, anecdotal though it maybe, even though visible anger of flood victims directed at visiting parliamentarians has been aired. There is also sufficient evidence that the government first grossly underestimated the scale of the disaster, and later consistently failed to take appropriate measures in time as its attention remained focused on political considerations. Epitomising failure to understand the gravity of the disaster the August 4 cabinet meeting did not deem it necessary to invite the Finance Minister who would have been able to provide an estimate of what could be released on an emergent basis to the provinces and, in addition, the Punjab government, represented by senior advisor Khosa and chief secretary, was not allowed to brief the cabinet on the damages suffered by the province. On the 8th of August the Prime Minister was in Karachi brokering a code of conduct between PPP, MQM and ANP.

The UN, however, began the next week to call on urgent assistance to ensure survival of what at the time was thought of as 6 million affected by the floods. Ban Ki-moon arrived in the country on the 15th of August and told the world that the disaster was worse than the tsunami. And yet there was only a trickle of assistance. The reason, according to an international financial institution spokesperson, was the trust deficit which she defined as the public in Western countries equating Pakistan with Taliban. The media in this country focused on domestic trust deficit based on numerous financial scams that this country has been subjected to, in the past, as well as during the last two years of the present government.

But what has raised hackles in the public are allegations of privately-built dykes on government lands by feudal lords and man-made breaking of dykes to divert flood waters from estates owned by some federal and provincial ministers to areas where the poor resided. Former Prime Minister Zafarullah Jamali also accused federal ministers of inundating large parts of Balochistan this way. Unfortunately, while the Prime Minister stated that he would institute a judicial inquiry on the matter the President dismissed these allegations as mere fiction .

A three-year full-term was given to General Kayani, on grounds that a change may not be desirable in mid-campaign of war on terror. His decision to keep army out of politics and his conduct was also a factor for his extension. The GHQ is, however, once again calling the shots in relation to Afghanistan, India and USA. Truly speaking, the Army is not yet fully governed by civilian authority, and does not take orders without question or demur.

The role played in restoration of judges, blocking transfer of ISI to Interior Ministry and public airing of views on Kerry-Lugar bill goes to show that the civilian-military relationship in this country has not matured to that stage. Until then the possibility of Bangladesh model cannot be ruled out altogether.

Courtesy: Business Recorder