Bangladesh News

The question in our title is a very serious one to ask. We wish we needn’t have to subject our President to it. But it has been forced upon us by his own actions. The onus is now on the President to answer and reassure the nation.
The President yesterday, quite inexplicably, decided to deploy the army in aid of the civil administration. Later, around midnight, just as inexplicably he decided to withdraw his decision. The reversal decision was just as sane as the original was questionable.

There are four aspects of the Presidential summersault that we would like to highlight today: a) the need for the decision itself; b) the process of making that decision; c) what the decision means for the caretaker government; and d) the implication for the army of such a decision.

By all accounts, Sunday’s blockade was peaceful save a few incidents, which are regrettable and shouldn’t have happened. Following the police ban on sticks and oars in any demonstration in the city, the 14-party alliance instructed their followers to desist from breaking this ban and we saw a near absence of such implements in the rallies. Credit must also be given to BNP’s leadership for avoiding confrontation in the streets. All said and done the day passed off peacefully compared to the events of 27-28 October. As the government handout itself says since the situation did not call for army deployment none were deployed. So why was a decision made to call in the army when the “situation” did not call for it? Who made that decision? Who suggested it to the President and persuaded him to consent to it. This decision, which had to be reversed around midnight, made the President look as if he was not in command of the situation and was being dictated to by “others”. This is definitely not an appropriate image for a man to project who combines in himself both the power of the President and Prime Minister.

Secondly, why was such a vital decision taken in secrecy keeping the Advisers in the dark? The plot thickens when one considers that the home secretary had already sent a written notification to the district administration early in the evening while the Adviser’s meeting that ended at 8.30 p.m. was not told about it. To think that a more than two-hour cabinet-level meeting of the caretaker government took place with the President and Chief Adviser in the chair without even a mention of such a vital decision already in the process of being put into action (see our report of yesterday), leave alone discussing the issue of army deployment, indicates a total sidelining of the Advisers which is completely contrary to the parliamentary system of government that the president indicated just the other day that he adheres to. His action also violated the rules of business as to how the caretaker government is to function.

Thirdly, yesterday’s event indicates that the President does not seem to think much of his cabinet and, more dangerously, does not seem to trust them. Otherwise how can he explain his conduct? Shouldn’t he have consulted his Advisers before making such a fundamental claim? Shouldn’t he, at least, have asked Akbar Ali Khan, a veteran bureaucrat and former cabinet secretary, whether or not such a decision can and should be made. Regrettably, he preferred his own coterie of bureaucrats who have already disgraced him by misleading him to say that his was a “presidential” form of government necessitating a clarification the following day.

Sunday night’s incident is a far more serious violation of the Constitution and Rules of Business of the government than what has happened so far. Deployment of the armed forces in aid of the civil administration is of course permitted by our Constitution but only as a last resort. It is only permitted on an area-by-area basis at the request of district administrations. We are not aware that such request came from any specific district or area.

Finally, such a decision has enormous implications for the civilian government and also for the armed forces. Given the sensitivity of the issue, our past experiences with military regimes, and the enormous and highly creditable job that the armed forces have done over the last fifteen years to create a pro-democracy image of itself, one has to think very seriously before a decision to deploy the armed forces is made. Were serious deliberations undertaken before the decision was made? If so, we are not aware of them. It is also said that the armed forces themselves were consulted before the decision of the home secretary was sent out. So who is running the administration?

The very fact that the cabinet was totally kept out of this particular decision indicates either of two things — that it was made frivolously or it was made mischievously (the appropriate word is conspiratorially but I don’t want to use it, as we are given to too many conspiracy theories). We have repeated that the “President is our last hope” and that he is a honourable, simple, trusting man devoted to academic pursuits and totally unused to the vagaries of power politics. We really want to believe that it was done in good faith but on bad advice. But, in all sincerity, can we? This paper has so far advocated more time and continued trust on the President. But how long can we continue in that vein when the Presidential actions are becoming more and more arbitrary, whimsical and secretive. We’ll soon have to draw the line and that time is very near.

We could have perhaps lived with the blunder of the decision, but how can we accept the secrecy with which it was done? First, the Advisers were not consulted when the decision was made; secondly, they were not informed after it was made; and thirdly, the proverbial straw on the camel’s back is that so much effort was made to hide this decision from the cabinet as exemplified by the fact that during a two-hour meeting of the full cabinet the decision of army deployment was not disclosed.

We had posed a question to the President in one of our earlier commentaries as to whether he would “Serve the Nation or his benefactors”. At that time it was asked with hope, expectation and an assumption that the question does not arise for a man who was and is a “Teacher” to serve his benefactors, and that it was axiomatic that he would serve the Nation.

Mr. President Sir, in all our sincerity, today we are no longer sure. Your actions have brought about this doubt in us. Before we become convinced otherwise please take actions that benefit the Nation. Start by taking your Advisers into confidence.

We have written several times already that his personal staff and the officials he is depending on have proven over and over again that they are not up to the job. They are not only embarrassing him but are also dragging him into one controversy after another. So far they have been instrumental in driving a wedge between the President and his Council of Advisors. In fact, they also frustrated the Advisers yesterday as the President decided to deploy the army, authorised the home secretary to send written instructions to the district administration and then reversed the decision around midnight.

The Cabinet was deliberately bypassed. Does it not constitute a violation of our Constitution according to which we are still in a parliamentary form of government in which the ministers (now advisers) are heads of their respective ministries and the Chief Adviser must operate through his cabinet?