The ex-chief justice, the ex-PM and that ‘ghoosh’ in the middle

Khaleda Zia's allegation against the ex-chief justice Khairul Haque that he took bribes to pass the 15th amendment which ended the caretaker government system has caused great hullabaloo as expected. Leaders and politicians from both sides are making statements against each other adding a lot more heat. In the process we are getting a view of the completely dysfunctional nature of our politics where anything can be said or done. It begs the question whether we deserve the present crop of politicians to rule us or not. In fact, one must ask if civilian politics has a future in Bangladesh given the civilians we have.

* * *
What Khaleda Zia said was outrageous no matter which way the words and sentences are rolled. But what her supporters are saying to back her border on absurdity. But what options do they have if they want to survive in Bangla politics be it in the BNP or the AL?

Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Khandker Mahbub Hossain defending Khaleda has said, "The remarks by the opposition leader were political, she herself will clarify it."

Excuse me! What is the politics in accusing another for taking bribes? K.M. Hussain has insisted that while judges took financial aid from the government, Khairul Haque took funds from the PM's relief fund.

"He (Khairul Haque) and his wife are financially solvent. But he took money from the prime minister's relief fund while he was giving the verdict on a petition on the constitution. The people are greatly confused about it."

Where is the confusion? It is all government money no matter from where the charity is coming from. So if he had taken money from the Judges Charity Fund or something else, it wouldn't be corruption, is this what K. M. Hussain suggesting?

Are people confused about where the money came from? Really?!? Frankly, we couldn't care a hoot unless it is coming to us. In which other country would the chief of opposition call a chief justice corrupt and then other leaders follow it up by discussing charitable donations from a public fund as a proof of corruption?

* * *
And what is the ex-CJ doing anyway by taking money from a relief fund? Signing receipts for taking khoyrat? Khoyrat has been such a problem since 1972 when 'blanket stealing' by a certain AL leader became a national pastime and even caused various constitutional amendments as we are told. Remember — Kombol Chor? Maybe the CJ was trying to impress Transparency International by keeping receipts of reliefs.

A list of 31 judges, 27 of whom had taken money from the prime minister's welfare fund and four others from the relief fund is public knowledge now.

The BNP must be told that if the PM wants to give bribe to a judge she doesn't need to ask the relief fund to deliver the money. There are 18000 or so professional people in Dhaka whose sole job is to collect toll from various businessmen and deliver bribes to various officials. But then this is Bangladesh, you don't have to make sense.

There has been some concern that Khairul Haque got the money when he was not 'poor or destitute'. I think this is not tenable. According to the Constitution, Part 1 Clause 6 (3), "all citizens of Bangladesh will be considered poor and destitute and therefore shall be eligible for grants from every state fund to support their needs. This includes monies from the Jamuna Bridge Compensation Fund and such other institutions."

* * *
The secretary general of the BNP Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir has also delivered his bit with an eye on history. He has said that not only will Khaleda not apologise as the ruling party led parliamentary body and the Lw minister has demanded but it is the Awami League that must apologise for many issues including passing the 4th amendment in 1975 which established one-party rule in Bangladesh.

We think this type of history based polemics is very good and suits the national mood. In fact, may we suggest that there are several other issues that can be raised against the AL including failing to deal with the famine of 1974, failure to negotiate with Pakistan in March 1971 and so on while discussing the recent apology by Khaleda for calling the ex-CJ a bribe- taker in 2011.

But why stop there? Why not ask Jinnah's Muslim League to apologise for not being nice to East Pakistan which angered the people and led to the founding of the Awami League in 1949? Why not ask the British to apologise too for the partition of Bengal in 1906 which kicked off the Bengali-Muslim political aspirations that ultimately led to the politics that saw the birth of Pakistan and subsequently to the founding of the Awami League?

As historian of sorts we truly love this kind of political discussions which can go nowhere and not deal with any of the issues concerned.

* * *
One can probably understand why Khaleda is so angry with Khairul Haque. He was the judge upon whose order Khaleda had to leave her cantonment house. The personal pain must be making the public agony even more intense. But is Khairul Haque a pro-AL judge? Is Justice Mujibul Haque or whoever pro-BNP? Probably yes, probably no, but what do we care?

As far as we are concerned, as long as we can get a bail when we 'accidentally' kill or maim our bua by pouring hot water on her mistakenly, we are less bothered by who sit at the higher courts. Right?

* * *
Concerning passing of the 15th amendment, nobody has contested the political weakness of the decision and the finest legal minds have lined up to say that it was a bad legal and political decision. We agree.

But let's come to the size of the 'bribe'. Taka 1.16 million for passing an amendment! Compared to the rate of bribe for looking the other way for importing contaminated products or constructing faulty roads, the alleged amount sounds not only flimsy but also insulting! I mean seriously people, this is the country where bribing has been developed into a fine art form.

Even darwans working at the ministerial residences take more to allow people to enter the house. It is obvious Khaleda Zia has not given or taken a bribe in a long time or maybe never. She knows nothing about rates.

* * *
The present PM passed an amendment whose purpose has remained cloudy at best. Most non-partisan people think it was a bad move that has almost guaranteed political chaos and disorder. But of course that is never a concern of any politician in the country. It is largely about staying in power in whatever way possible. Many had expressed fears that the conflict between the two parties will be heightened and bloody days ahead are inevitable. The recent Khaleda statements are a reminder of that.

The judiciary has been damaged for long and the recent conflict will further erode whatever authority it has. We are not sure given the situation how deeply it will be mourned if it ceases to function but still…

* * *
Looking at our civilian stalwarts, we have to wonder what the future of politics is in Bangladesh. Of course everyone wants them (and not the military) to rule but there is a big difference between ruling and governing. What we have seen since 1990 can hardly be called anything but a series of civilian regimes rather than governing constructs. They are just political parties in power and messing around which doesn't prove civilian political capacity to rule Bangladesh.

Once in a while military regime options are discussed but it is done not because they are preferred but because civilian politics and politicians are so dreadfully hopeless who offer nothing but a life without optimism and martial law seems a way out. However, military politicians are no better proven by their performance in the many regimes and innings that they have played in Bangladesh. And in a democracy that's never an option.

Barring partisans most people want none of the three. The era of functional civilian rule may be coming to an end, unless it already has. Having civilians rule us is a luxury just as military rule is an indulgence. Are we heading towards a state of non-governance?

————————————
Afsan Chowdhury is a Consulting Editor of bdnews24.com.