An idea that deserves consideration
Thursday, 13 March 2008
Mozzamel Haque
WHEN the idea of a National Security Council (NSC) was first floated for Bangladesh, it evoked a mixed reaction. Some warmly welcomed the idea while others viewed it with suspicion. The latter mainly thought of it as a clever ploy to keep the country under some kind of control by non constitutional forces.
But an initiative to form the National Security Council (NSC) ought not to trigger any unwarranted speculation in any quarter. This is for the reason that such councils are more the rule than exceptions in many otherwise democratically governed countries of the world. For example, the United States of America (USA) has the NSC. The elected President and his cabinet colleagues, members of the two houses of the legislature who are elected, all play important roles in law making and governing the USA in all respects. But notwithstanding their central roles in governance, the existence of a body to watch over governance of the USA in matters pertaining to its supreme security or national interests, is permitted.
The wisdom behind admitting such a body is to ensure that even if something goes wrong in the ruling system or among the functionaries of that system, the NSC would exercise its role and frustrate any grave lapse in running the country from spinning out of control. The operation of such an institution to watch benignly over the highest security interests of the state, thus, is found to be very useful.
Therefore, there is no reason to have any misgivings about such a body in the context of Bangladesh. Not too distant events do underline the need for forming the NSC. For a long time until 1/11, the progress of the country in different areas continued to be threatened from its unstable and acrimonious politics. At one stage in the latter past of 2006 extending up to the first ten days of January, 2007, the political ills appeared so shattering that it seemed that Bangladesh would be thrown into the disastrous vortex of a civil war. Both the ruling party and the opposition ones seemed completely unable to tame their basic instincts of animosities and hatreds towards each other and their utter lack of responsibilities pushed the country to the lowest depths of uncertainty and despair. Had the ruling party and the opposition then played their proper and expected role as the guardians of the country, such a dangerous situation of physical and economic insecurity for the country could have been avoided.
Countrymen had been witnesses to these conditions when the armed forces of Bangladesh like at other times in the past, performed the role of the redeemer or saviour. Only their timely intervention pulled the country away from the brink of disaster and subsequently under their careful guidance conditions are being created for full democratic governance following successful and comprehensive reforms in the political system of the country so that the sort of ruinous experiences faced by the country in the recent past, are not repeated.
Thus, it should be only logical that the role of the armed forces should be institutionalised for their rendering of similar services as the redeemer in the future, should the need arise again. There is no knowing that political deadlocks or follies, will assuredly not arise in the years to come. But the same may be offset 'early' if there remains an institutional mechanism for the armed forces to exert the right pressure on the country's government of the day or the ruling party and political forces, to behave as they should. This will mean the continuation of democratic governance but without the tendency or the opportunity on the part of the players in such governance to run the country as irresponsibly as they actually earlier did.
It should be notable that the armed forces are not making a bid for power through the NSC. If they wanted, they could easily take over the reins of power directly and justify well such a takeover. But they have only paved the way for holding elections to be acceptable to all and cleaner politics to emerge from the process. The idea of the NSC should be rightly construed as a safety mechanism only to ensure that the new politics and democratic system to emerge after the elections, do not get vitiated once again to rock the country's stability and peaceful progress. NSC would be a body to prevent such a drift.
However, the functional responsibility of the proposed NSC must be made clear before it is finally approved and then formed. There must be an unambiguous statement about its goals and objectives. The operational guidelines for this proposed body and its composition pattern should also merit attention. And its functions and responsibilities should not be over-stretched and should also be similar to the ones that are in operations in many other countries including those in our neighbouring ones. The proposed body should be a constitutional authority. It should not run afoul of the basic principles of democracy where the role of elected representatives of the people in national parliament or assembly reins supreme for governance of a country in accordance with fair and standard rules of the game.
WHEN the idea of a National Security Council (NSC) was first floated for Bangladesh, it evoked a mixed reaction. Some warmly welcomed the idea while others viewed it with suspicion. The latter mainly thought of it as a clever ploy to keep the country under some kind of control by non constitutional forces.
But an initiative to form the National Security Council (NSC) ought not to trigger any unwarranted speculation in any quarter. This is for the reason that such councils are more the rule than exceptions in many otherwise democratically governed countries of the world. For example, the United States of America (USA) has the NSC. The elected President and his cabinet colleagues, members of the two houses of the legislature who are elected, all play important roles in law making and governing the USA in all respects. But notwithstanding their central roles in governance, the existence of a body to watch over governance of the USA in matters pertaining to its supreme security or national interests, is permitted.
The wisdom behind admitting such a body is to ensure that even if something goes wrong in the ruling system or among the functionaries of that system, the NSC would exercise its role and frustrate any grave lapse in running the country from spinning out of control. The operation of such an institution to watch benignly over the highest security interests of the state, thus, is found to be very useful.
Therefore, there is no reason to have any misgivings about such a body in the context of Bangladesh. Not too distant events do underline the need for forming the NSC. For a long time until 1/11, the progress of the country in different areas continued to be threatened from its unstable and acrimonious politics. At one stage in the latter past of 2006 extending up to the first ten days of January, 2007, the political ills appeared so shattering that it seemed that Bangladesh would be thrown into the disastrous vortex of a civil war. Both the ruling party and the opposition ones seemed completely unable to tame their basic instincts of animosities and hatreds towards each other and their utter lack of responsibilities pushed the country to the lowest depths of uncertainty and despair. Had the ruling party and the opposition then played their proper and expected role as the guardians of the country, such a dangerous situation of physical and economic insecurity for the country could have been avoided.
Countrymen had been witnesses to these conditions when the armed forces of Bangladesh like at other times in the past, performed the role of the redeemer or saviour. Only their timely intervention pulled the country away from the brink of disaster and subsequently under their careful guidance conditions are being created for full democratic governance following successful and comprehensive reforms in the political system of the country so that the sort of ruinous experiences faced by the country in the recent past, are not repeated.
Thus, it should be only logical that the role of the armed forces should be institutionalised for their rendering of similar services as the redeemer in the future, should the need arise again. There is no knowing that political deadlocks or follies, will assuredly not arise in the years to come. But the same may be offset 'early' if there remains an institutional mechanism for the armed forces to exert the right pressure on the country's government of the day or the ruling party and political forces, to behave as they should. This will mean the continuation of democratic governance but without the tendency or the opportunity on the part of the players in such governance to run the country as irresponsibly as they actually earlier did.
It should be notable that the armed forces are not making a bid for power through the NSC. If they wanted, they could easily take over the reins of power directly and justify well such a takeover. But they have only paved the way for holding elections to be acceptable to all and cleaner politics to emerge from the process. The idea of the NSC should be rightly construed as a safety mechanism only to ensure that the new politics and democratic system to emerge after the elections, do not get vitiated once again to rock the country's stability and peaceful progress. NSC would be a body to prevent such a drift.
However, the functional responsibility of the proposed NSC must be made clear before it is finally approved and then formed. There must be an unambiguous statement about its goals and objectives. The operational guidelines for this proposed body and its composition pattern should also merit attention. And its functions and responsibilities should not be over-stretched and should also be similar to the ones that are in operations in many other countries including those in our neighbouring ones. The proposed body should be a constitutional authority. It should not run afoul of the basic principles of democracy where the role of elected representatives of the people in national parliament or assembly reins supreme for governance of a country in accordance with fair and standard rules of the game.