Committed to PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO KNOW
Vol. 5 Num 817 Wed. September 13, 2006  
   
Editorial


NDI's concerns
Need to be addressed
A National Democratic Institute (NDI) team from the United States, led by Tom Daschle, former Majority and Minority Leader of the US Senate, and composed of former Prime Minister of New Zealand Mike Moore, and former Cambodian Minister Mu Sochua, was in Bangladesh recently. They were in town in pursuit of NDI's stated objectives, of building political and civic organisations, to safeguard elections, to promote citizen participation and openness and accountability in government. In the process, they met leaders of the major political parties, and members of the civil society and the media.

There is very little difference in what the visiting NDI members had to say that has not been said by the media, or in their apprehensions that had not been expressed by us, nor in their evocation that was not in the suggestions made by the media to address the impasse. To be precise, theirs was a restatement and indeed reinforcement of the media's position on the entire gamut of electoral issues, The Daily Star included.

There are precisely three sets of messages addressed to the ruling coalition, the opposition and the Election Commission. First, the voter list is inconsistent with the census of 2001, and that is a genuine cause for concern.

Secondly, the issue of the chief of the caretaker government must be addressed dispassionately in that the probable incumbent's past records as a justice of the highest court of the country and the latter part of his career and his performance as the chief justice, merit examination.

Thirdly, there is serious denudation of confidence in the chief election commissioner and his team as has been reflected in the comments of the civil society, the media and the public on it, over the recent months. And the views of the visiting NDI team on the EC, particularly on the CEC, are not in conflict with the general opinion in Bangladesh about it.

It needs to be reemphasised that the election should not be held ransom to party demands that might pose grave uncertainty to our democracy. We feel that the precedent set by the three previous democratic elections since 1991 is worth emulating. It is everybody's hope that the election will be of a quality and transparency that would be acceptable to all.

Time is running out, but there may just be enough time for well-intentioned people in relevant positions to rectify mistakes, in the voter list in particular, so that a free and fair election can be held in the country.