Colonnade of power and punishment
Friday, 11 December 2009
Nizam Ahmad
It is forbidden to kill; therefore, all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -- Voltaire (1694-1778)
Death penalties for murder, robbery, and theft were most common in the long past. Put to death too were kings, heroes, rebels, and revolutionaries. Human rights and human life, irrespective of crime, were not an issue unlike now.
Today, many liberal countries have abolished death penalty for any crime. Member nations of the European Union and Canada stand foremost in having abolished death penalty. The Council of Europe prohibits any member state from practising it. Most people in the United States of America tolerate the use of capital punishment as the punishment for murder but they have made legal reforms such as 'plea bargaining' under which death penalties are sometimes not carried out. In many US states, capital punishment does not exist and in most, religious and human rights activists oppose it. Americans, however, are passionate about Locke's political philosophy that glorifies violence as the ultimate and legitimate tool to overthrow unpopular authorities.
Human rights activists argue that death penalty violates the right to life. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares it as a 'destruction of human life.' Recently, Maldives president, Mohammed Nasheed, surprisingly suggested a moratorium on death penalty, sparking a debate in the country. Amnesty International is the best known global organisation that wants capital punishment eliminated, and has urged Bangladesh not to hang the five convicted and a few absconding former soldiers to death for the 1975 killing of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and all of his family members but two.
In Great Britain, despite the abolition of the 'death penalty for murder', the penalty survived for crimes as spying as a military offence, until its complete abolition in 1998. Prior to its abolition, there were still no executions for military transgression as mutiny, incitement to mutiny, and failure to suppress mutiny. Today, 'working gallows' are historic but well maintained tourist exhibits in the Galleries of Justice, a museum of Crime and Punishment in Nottingham, England.
In the past, Britain was an absolute monarchy, a violent nation at constant war with its own people. State gallows determined power and politics. In 1649, the parliament, under Oliver Cromwell, the military leader and politician, revolted and passed an Ordinance to set up a High Court of Justice to try Charles I, the King of England, for high treason.
With the execution of King Charles I, monarchy was abolished and a republican government, the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland was established from 1649 until 1660, when the monarchy returned and Charles II, the son of executed King Charles I, was restored (called the Restoration) as the King of England.
In English political history, Oliver Cromwell, who led the mutiny, is one of the most enigmatic figures. He was a rebel and famous for revolting against the English monarchy and attempting to turn the country into a republic. Cromwell inspired the beginning of a democratic society but his ways were brutal and bloody [BBC, Cromwell: Hero or Villain?].
Cromwell became popular because of his action to abolish monarchy. Many in modern times celebrate Cromwell as "the great leader" and hail him as a hero for sowing the seeds of a constitutional government. There are about 4,000 books written about Cromwell that tell the importance of the man [BBC].
However, despite Cromwell's much applauded action, monarchy had returned quickly in 1660. Under the Indemnity and Oblivion Act 1660, King Charles II, the son of the executed king, hanged the killers of his father and posthumously beheaded the body of Oliver Cromwell, who died in 1658 of malaria, and removed it from the Westminster Abbey graveyard reserved for the eminent.
The Indemnity and Oblivion Act 1660 had pardoned a few, sent many into oblivion with life imprisonment, and those already dead at the time of Restoration in 1660 had their bodies desecrated. However, the Indemnity and Oblivion Act 1660 did one great favour to the world as it pardoned the famous English poet John Milton, of Paradise Lost fame, who, a republican, was an official serving Oliver Cromwell.
In 1660, in England, the 'political pendulum' had swung back to the pre-revolutionary times of 1649. During the French Revolution (1789-1799), this 'swinging backwards' of political conditions were coined 'Thermidor Revolution'. Thermidor refers to the coup of 9 Thermidor of the French Revolution Calendar (27 July 1794) that started with the arrest of Robespierre, who spearheaded the Revolution, and his execution without trial that ended his Reign of Terror. For historians of revolutionary movements, Thermidor means the period when political conditions swing backwards to something resembling an older state of political setting [Wikipedia].
The English period of parliamentary and military rule, beginning with the killing of King Charles I in January 1649 and ending with the restoration of King Charles II, his son, in 1660, was a Thermodorian revolution. The political situation in Bangladesh that came after 1975 coup and its swinging back to pre-1975 times, as now, is also a Thermodorian revolution. Perhaps, the pendulum would continue to swing back and forth until a non-violent and a liberal government culture, as in modern Europe, replaces the violence-prone power politics of Bangladesh.
Violence by the people or unrestrained exercise of power by the government, as in Cromwell's times, settles national politics in most developing countries and Bangladesh is no exception. Perhaps, Bangladesh would remain in periodic political swings for years to come. History may consider them -- those to be punished now following the completion of the trial -- in a different way in a different cycle of political power matrix. Only time will confirm if they would be villains or otherwise. People, too, may write and speak volumes about them. But, disturbingly, nobody can say for certain about what will be the development, if the 'political pendulum' swings back to post-1975 times.
The government of Bangladesh, as it says, stands for establishment the Rule of Law with death penalty to the five. However, no developed and democratic country has established the Rule of Law by practising capital punishment but by abolishing it. Evidently, there is justice and greater rule of law in countries that do not have capital punishment than there is in countries where such punishment is in full force.
Modern, liberal, plural, and secular democracy respects human rights and values human life. The coercive powers over citizens (apart from taxation, drugs, legal tenders, or military conscriptions) of modern democratic governments have almost vanished. Democratic governments do not endeavour to support or promote one language, one culture, or one religion but diversity, human rights, and life. Bangladesh would receive an international image boost, a global salutation, if it responds to the urgings of Amnesty International to stop the executions. That there are no similar urgings from local human rights activists clearly exposes the illiberal nature of democracy in Bangladesh, or the failure of the activists to value human life from high moral ground.
By protecting human life, by abolishing capital punishment, Bangladesh may end its violent political nature and establish the Rule of Law that values human life, irrespective of crime. Murder for murder or an eye for an eye of the Old Testament is wrong. World's one of the most powerful, Jesus Christ, pardoned his killers and said, 'forgive them for they know not what they do'. Surely, the world has learned 'new' that wrongs do not make right or none, however powerful, a State or an individual, has the right to take life. It requires greater power to pardon than power to slay, and a country is safer, more just, and stronger without capital punishment than a country that practises it.
The writer belongs to Liberal Bangla UK
It is forbidden to kill; therefore, all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -- Voltaire (1694-1778)
Death penalties for murder, robbery, and theft were most common in the long past. Put to death too were kings, heroes, rebels, and revolutionaries. Human rights and human life, irrespective of crime, were not an issue unlike now.
Today, many liberal countries have abolished death penalty for any crime. Member nations of the European Union and Canada stand foremost in having abolished death penalty. The Council of Europe prohibits any member state from practising it. Most people in the United States of America tolerate the use of capital punishment as the punishment for murder but they have made legal reforms such as 'plea bargaining' under which death penalties are sometimes not carried out. In many US states, capital punishment does not exist and in most, religious and human rights activists oppose it. Americans, however, are passionate about Locke's political philosophy that glorifies violence as the ultimate and legitimate tool to overthrow unpopular authorities.
Human rights activists argue that death penalty violates the right to life. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares it as a 'destruction of human life.' Recently, Maldives president, Mohammed Nasheed, surprisingly suggested a moratorium on death penalty, sparking a debate in the country. Amnesty International is the best known global organisation that wants capital punishment eliminated, and has urged Bangladesh not to hang the five convicted and a few absconding former soldiers to death for the 1975 killing of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and all of his family members but two.
In Great Britain, despite the abolition of the 'death penalty for murder', the penalty survived for crimes as spying as a military offence, until its complete abolition in 1998. Prior to its abolition, there were still no executions for military transgression as mutiny, incitement to mutiny, and failure to suppress mutiny. Today, 'working gallows' are historic but well maintained tourist exhibits in the Galleries of Justice, a museum of Crime and Punishment in Nottingham, England.
In the past, Britain was an absolute monarchy, a violent nation at constant war with its own people. State gallows determined power and politics. In 1649, the parliament, under Oliver Cromwell, the military leader and politician, revolted and passed an Ordinance to set up a High Court of Justice to try Charles I, the King of England, for high treason.
With the execution of King Charles I, monarchy was abolished and a republican government, the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland was established from 1649 until 1660, when the monarchy returned and Charles II, the son of executed King Charles I, was restored (called the Restoration) as the King of England.
In English political history, Oliver Cromwell, who led the mutiny, is one of the most enigmatic figures. He was a rebel and famous for revolting against the English monarchy and attempting to turn the country into a republic. Cromwell inspired the beginning of a democratic society but his ways were brutal and bloody [BBC, Cromwell: Hero or Villain?].
Cromwell became popular because of his action to abolish monarchy. Many in modern times celebrate Cromwell as "the great leader" and hail him as a hero for sowing the seeds of a constitutional government. There are about 4,000 books written about Cromwell that tell the importance of the man [BBC].
However, despite Cromwell's much applauded action, monarchy had returned quickly in 1660. Under the Indemnity and Oblivion Act 1660, King Charles II, the son of the executed king, hanged the killers of his father and posthumously beheaded the body of Oliver Cromwell, who died in 1658 of malaria, and removed it from the Westminster Abbey graveyard reserved for the eminent.
The Indemnity and Oblivion Act 1660 had pardoned a few, sent many into oblivion with life imprisonment, and those already dead at the time of Restoration in 1660 had their bodies desecrated. However, the Indemnity and Oblivion Act 1660 did one great favour to the world as it pardoned the famous English poet John Milton, of Paradise Lost fame, who, a republican, was an official serving Oliver Cromwell.
In 1660, in England, the 'political pendulum' had swung back to the pre-revolutionary times of 1649. During the French Revolution (1789-1799), this 'swinging backwards' of political conditions were coined 'Thermidor Revolution'. Thermidor refers to the coup of 9 Thermidor of the French Revolution Calendar (27 July 1794) that started with the arrest of Robespierre, who spearheaded the Revolution, and his execution without trial that ended his Reign of Terror. For historians of revolutionary movements, Thermidor means the period when political conditions swing backwards to something resembling an older state of political setting [Wikipedia].
The English period of parliamentary and military rule, beginning with the killing of King Charles I in January 1649 and ending with the restoration of King Charles II, his son, in 1660, was a Thermodorian revolution. The political situation in Bangladesh that came after 1975 coup and its swinging back to pre-1975 times, as now, is also a Thermodorian revolution. Perhaps, the pendulum would continue to swing back and forth until a non-violent and a liberal government culture, as in modern Europe, replaces the violence-prone power politics of Bangladesh.
Violence by the people or unrestrained exercise of power by the government, as in Cromwell's times, settles national politics in most developing countries and Bangladesh is no exception. Perhaps, Bangladesh would remain in periodic political swings for years to come. History may consider them -- those to be punished now following the completion of the trial -- in a different way in a different cycle of political power matrix. Only time will confirm if they would be villains or otherwise. People, too, may write and speak volumes about them. But, disturbingly, nobody can say for certain about what will be the development, if the 'political pendulum' swings back to post-1975 times.
The government of Bangladesh, as it says, stands for establishment the Rule of Law with death penalty to the five. However, no developed and democratic country has established the Rule of Law by practising capital punishment but by abolishing it. Evidently, there is justice and greater rule of law in countries that do not have capital punishment than there is in countries where such punishment is in full force.
Modern, liberal, plural, and secular democracy respects human rights and values human life. The coercive powers over citizens (apart from taxation, drugs, legal tenders, or military conscriptions) of modern democratic governments have almost vanished. Democratic governments do not endeavour to support or promote one language, one culture, or one religion but diversity, human rights, and life. Bangladesh would receive an international image boost, a global salutation, if it responds to the urgings of Amnesty International to stop the executions. That there are no similar urgings from local human rights activists clearly exposes the illiberal nature of democracy in Bangladesh, or the failure of the activists to value human life from high moral ground.
By protecting human life, by abolishing capital punishment, Bangladesh may end its violent political nature and establish the Rule of Law that values human life, irrespective of crime. Murder for murder or an eye for an eye of the Old Testament is wrong. World's one of the most powerful, Jesus Christ, pardoned his killers and said, 'forgive them for they know not what they do'. Surely, the world has learned 'new' that wrongs do not make right or none, however powerful, a State or an individual, has the right to take life. It requires greater power to pardon than power to slay, and a country is safer, more just, and stronger without capital punishment than a country that practises it.
The writer belongs to Liberal Bangla UK