Dhiraj Kumar Nath

Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of United Nations, on 16th December, 2006 urged upon the Caretaker Government "to ensure a level playing field for fair election through the restoration of confidence in the Bangladesh Election Commission''.
   Equally, widespread demand exits for a transparent level playing field to ensure free and fair election to the 9th Parliament of Bangladesh with the participation of all parties and alliances. Voters in general are convinced that holding general elections without any level playing field would not reflect the wishes of the people and therefore, is not acceptable. There is no option if one wants to ensure participation of all political parties and alliances in such elections.
   
   Certified copy of results
   The creation of level playing field depends on few visible indicators like equal opportunity for all parties to propagate their political manifesto or plan of actions through the media and at all places without any discrimination. Civil administration and law enforcing agencies should not display any discrimination while conducting the election and acting as the Returning Officers. Experts on election observed that the recruitment of Presiding Officers, Polling Officers and the selection of polling centers in consultation with all contesting parties and candidates might be a visible example of neutrality and fair play by the officials of the election commission. Cooperation and equal treatment with all election agents within the polling booth, counting and announcement of result quickly in a transparent manner and allowing the agent to get a certified copy of the result can demonstrate a state of level playing filed prevailing during the election.
   All these issues might appear as minor details but can create havoc during the time of polling. Any lapses in the system are cognizable before the election tribunal during the time of appeal against the result and its acceptability by the defeated party. Therefore, Election Commission must arrange extensive movement of election observers from home and abroad and mobilise civil society organizations committed to election watch to certify that level playing field existed during the election.
   For example, election commission of West Bengal had hired polling officials from Bihar, Orissa and Assam and law enforcing officials from Chennai and Maharastra during the election of state assembly last year to make the level playing field more visible and transparent and also to address the allegation of Trinamul Congress about rigging during election. We may also exchange such personnel among the Divisions during polling time to avoid any doubt and confusion about the partisan views and alleged maneuverings by the election personnel.
   To create a level playing field, lot of reformations are necessary, which include reformation in the election commission, a fair electoral roll, voting system with transparent ballot box, introduction of electronic voting system, amendment of people's representation order, illegibility of the candidates, trading by political parties while nominating a candidate etc. It is true, all these reformations cannot be completed promptly or all on a sudden but there should be initiative and commitment to go ahead.
   The Republic of Philippines promulgated Fair Election Act, 2006 [Representative Act No 9006]. The main purpose of the Act was to enhance the holding of free orderly, peaceful and credible election through fair election practices.
   This Act of Philippines has very explicitly demonstrated the wishes of the Government. The implementation lies with the administration. Similarly, civil society groups and some organizations like CPD or Sujan are expecting such a demeanor from the government.
   We must remember, level playing field is important to sustain the democratic system by creating an opportunity to hear the voice of everybody including the deprived minorities and the underprivileged poor.
   Democracy thrives on information. It also thrives in an environment where media freedom exists. Media can play a pivotal role in creating a field conducive to level playing only when democracy functions fairly with the support of the majority. Thus, democratic values and mutual respect among the contesting candidates can create a level playing field.
   Good governance is the prerequisite for creating a level playing field for free and fair election. Good governance consists of transparency, accountability, efficiency and neutrality. All these are most essential for a fair election especially in the preparation of accurate voter list, selection of polling center in an acceptable place, prompt announcement of the election result etc. Voters in general demand good governance to prevail at every stage of election process, which in turn ensures level playing field for fair election and democracy to make more acceptable as way of life.
   
   Bureaucracy's neutrality
   Nowadays people's confidence on the neutrality of bureaucracy is eroding very fast. There are reasons for which general administration fails to project its neutrality. Firstly, many officials involved in the election process are closely related with politicians of different parties as kith and kin. Some how or rather it becomes known to other in a closed society like ours. The question is quickly raised about his partisan views although he might be a neutral bureaucrat. Secondly, a few officials might be involved in student politics and engaged in election process. Neutrality of such officers is made questionable without finding any fault in his behaviour. Thirdly, many servants of the Republic cannot overcome the undue pressure from the party in power and bow down to the dictation and thereby renounce their neutrality. Fourthly, party in power takes a plan to make the recruitment of their followers in the office of the republic as strategy to use them during election. This is an unfortunate chapter with which leakage of question papers etc of public examinations is also involved creating a glaring example of corruption.
   Fortunately, most of the officials demonstrate their neutrality whenever they get the opportunity to exhibit the same. This is the reason for which every caretaker government has taken the step to change their place of posting by transfer and posting to create an opportunity for them. There is difference of opinion about such a large scale transfer and posting but this is the best and wisest procedure to create a condition for fair election at least to open an opportunity for bureaucrats to demonstrate their impartiality.
   During election time, services of all officials are placed with the Election Commission. The commission must be strong enough to punish the officials found breaching the trust of neutrality if any, on the basis of any allegation with adequate evidences.
   It is impossible to create a level playing field without the active support of political parties or alliances. The tendency to utilise the bureaucracy by political parties during election, or their intolerance to their opponents and respect to the wisdom of the voters are major impediments to ensure free and fair election in our country.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

The strategic partnerships

Nasrine R. Karim

For several years now, Indian and US officials have been speaking of an Indo-US "strategic partnership," including increased economic, scientific, technical and military ties. Buoyed by India's emergence as a major center for outsourced business processing, research and manufacturing operations and the country's growing military prowess, India's economic and political elite is eager to lay claim to world-power status, including a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
   In a joint statement during the official visit to Washington, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George W. Bush had proclaimed "their resolve to transform the relationship between their countries" into a "global partnership." This was his first official trip to Washington after becoming Prime Minister in May 2004.
   Prime Minister Singh addressed a joint session of the US Congress - an honor rarely accorded to foreign leaders. The Bush administration seemed eager to court India, hoping that through increased Indo-US economic, geo-political and military linkages, India can be transformed into a viable counterweight to China?
   Prime Minister Singh made a brief mention in a speech at the National Press Club, the Indian government's official opposition to the US invasion of Iraq, but only to say that this controversy was "a thing of the past."
   However, the most important feature of this joint statement was an agreement between Washington and New Delhi was the removal of the international ban on sales of civilian nuclear technology and fuel to India. The ban had been imposed since 1974, when India first exploded a nuclear devic.
   The Bush administration stopped short of recognizing India, which declared itself a nuclear weapons state in 1998. As such, it has the legal right to possess nuclear weapons. Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran declared to a media briefing, "What has been achieved in recognition by the US that, for all practical purposes, India should have the same benefits and rights as a nuclear weapons state." India, which is heavily dependent on foreign oil, is eager to expand its nuclear power generation capacity and for this needs greater access to foreign nuclear technology and fuel.
   The US-based intelligence report Stratfor says official Pentagon leaks have said India is poised to make up to $5 billion in purchases from US arms manufactures once the sanctions are lifted, including advanced anti-submarine and anti-missile technology to protect its Indian Ocean fleet.
   The history of US-Indian relations has been complex, to say the least. It must be noted that for four decades, India and the US were estranged, because India having won independence from Britain, refused to submit to the US's demand that its foreign policy should be framed by the US's Cold War confrontation with the Soviet Union. Subsequently, Washington made India's bitter South Asian rival, Pakistan its Cold War ally. A move that, consequently led India to develop close military and economic relations with the former USSR.
   With the end of the Cold War and the growing demand in India's economy created by its requirement for the resources of world, India has since 1991 pursued a different strategy. India has aimed at soliciting foreign investment and the dismantling of the traditional nationally regulated economy. The US has emerged as India's single largest trading partner and foreign investor. New Delhi and Washington have developed a gamut of ties apart from trade, including joint military exercises.
   Already under the Clinton administration there was a major shift in the US attitude towards South Asia, with Washington tilting decisively toward India. However, after 9/11, the US decision to invade Afghanistan and subsequent necessary revival of Washington's "close" relations with Pakistan, - especially the Pakistani military, complicated the Bush administration efforts to draw India into a "strategic partnership." However, things have gone for towards a fragile "peaceful understanding" since then.
   Condoleeza Rice's quick diplomatic offer of help in making India a "world power" was perhaps a reaction to the fact that India may choose either to ally with the US or become a party to anti-US alliance. India has always known how to play its card right.
   India has traditionally maintained close diplomatic and military ties with Russia. Shortly after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, India's National Democratic Alliance government, led by the BJP, launched a concerted drive to repair relations with China which led to the Chinese Premier visit to India. The two countries announced a strategic partnership. India also took steps to join the Chinese and Russian-led Shanghai Cooperation Organization, through which Moscow and Beijing seeks to counter US influence in the Asia, especially in Central Asia.
   While Delhi has shied away from joining Moscow and Beijing in countering the current seemingly geo-political unilateral order, Prime Minister Singh and his government have spoken out forcefully against US attempts to coerce India and Pakistan into giving up their plans for a gas-pipeline connecting the two South Asian countries to Iran. Recently the Foreign Minister visited Iran for bilateral talks.
   India's multiple strategic partnerships with Russia, China, and the US indicate, that the current Congress-led UPA is successfully exploiting India's status, which is being courted by most great powers. While Washington counts both rivals Pakistan and India as allies, the Bush administration's diplomacy seems strongly weighted towards establishing a strategic relationship with the latter.
   An article published in the "Foreign Policy In Focus" pointed to rapidly developing defence ties between the US and India. This included joint naval patrols in the Malacca Strait, workshops on ballistic missile defence and cooperation in defence technology. The article, entitled "US and India - A Dangerous Alliance", cited the remarks of Lloyd Richardson from the Hudson Institute who declared that India has the "economic and military strength to counter the adverse effects of China's rise as a regional and world power. India is the most over-looked of our potential allies in strategy to contain China." It also quoted a leaked US Defence Department document, that "China represents the most significant threat to both countries (India and US) security in the future as an economic and military competitor." In return for it's backing on Kashmir and economic cooperation, the Bush administration wants India as a close military ally. India's strategic location in the centre of Asia, linking the Middle East and East Asia makes India particularly attractive to the US. (What would make US attractive to India? - should be the question.)
   The joint statement issued by Bush and Singh in Washington called for, among other things, the establishment of a "CEO" forum, uniting Indian and US business leaders to promote increased trade and investment. India is to take steps to "enhance its investment climate" if it wants to tap into US capital in modernizing its infrastructure; US-Indian cooperation in developing "stable and efficient energy markets in India"; public-private partnerships in the space and high technology sector; and the creation of a US-India Global Democracy Initiative in which the US and Indian government will work together to provide assistance to states wants help in developing "democratic" institutions.
   The most surprising factor is that the "New Framework for the US-India Defence Relationship" signed by top Indian and US officials, including then Indian Defence Minister now in charge of Foreign Affairs, Pranab Mukherjee and former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld apparently stipulated a suggestion that the Indian military could be deployed overseas alongside US forces in non-UN approved operations, and clauses that potentially tie purchases of US military equipment to acceptance of certain US policy stipulations. India is not known to be anyone's camp follower and always acts on what is right for India and only India.
   In a joint statement, however, on the 18th of July, 2004 the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George W. Bush proclaimed "their resolve to transform the relationship between their countries" into a "global partnership." Bush administration sought to demonstrate the importance they attach to the Indo-US relationship during the four-day visit. Singh repeatedly spoke of the common values that India and the US reputedly share, including "the openness of our societies and economies ... our pluralism, our diversity and our freedom."
   In May, the same year, the State Department's Nicholas Burns, the Undersecretary for Political Affairs, said of US-Indian relations, "I think you'll see this as a major focus of our President and our Secretary of State, and it will be the area of greatest dynamic change in American foreign policy."
   What one must not forget is that, during Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's tour of South Asia on April 5-12th 2004, it seemed to also mark a tentative rapprochement between China and India! The two countries, which fought a war in 1962, actually moved toward settling their border differences as well as opening up closer economic relations.
   On the economic front, the Indo-Chinese joint statement announced that trade between two countries would be increased to $US20 billion by 2008 - up from $13 billion in 2004. The two leaders agreed to establish joint economic groups, mechanisms for trade and investment promotion, closer financial relations, improved IT cooperation and the enhancement of direct shipping and aviation links, etc.
   One key area involved oil and gas. The two sides agreed "to cooperate in the field of energy security and conservation" and to encourage agencies in the two countries to work together "in the survey and exploration of petroleum and natural gas resources in third countries". The agreement is significant as both countries are in competition for resources to meet their rapidly growing demands for energy
   Wen, who also visited Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, stressed his "most important visit" was to India where he spent the last four days of the eight-day tour. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh summed up New Delhi's enthusiasm for the visit when he welcomed Wen, declaring; "India and China together reshape the world order". Where does that leave Pakistan and us? As neighbours, we know how bright the Indian light can be! Bomb blasts or not, the heat is on.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE