Jan 05 polls in the eyes of foreign news media

Election to the 10th  Jatiya Sangsad (parliament) of Bangladesh was held on January 05 this. It saw violence and non-participation by the 18-party opposition alliance led by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). The election was held amid the countrywide strike and blockade which were in progress from December 29.
Foreign news media particularly pay attention to Bangladesh when it is struck by natural calamities like floods, cyclone and political conflicts.
The ruling Awami League went ahead with the holding of the parliamentary election in accordance with the election-related provisions of the amended Constitution. It ignored good counselling of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the governments of the US, the UK, Canada and the European Union to hold free, fair, credible and inclusive general election in consultation with all other political parties.
The prime minister and Awami League president  Sheikh Hasina, however, gave the cold shoulder to the suggestions of world leaders and conducted the election in which participation of voters raised big question marks. There have been contradictory reports about the percentage of turnout of voters in the polls. The Election Commission, which is not completely an independent body as it is in many countries of the world including India, the UK, the US or Germany, found a mere 40 per cent voter participation. Some non-governmental human rights and election monitoring agencies have said turnout of voters could hardly be 10 per cent. Voter turnout varied in different voting centres across the country. In some voting centres in cities, there were usual crowds while others were deserted. Stuffing of ballots by activists  of the Awami League in many polling centres was widely reported. Polling in 300 centres was postponed by the EC because of violence there.
This being the scenario, the New York Times in its editorial of January 06 under the heading 'Democracy in Peril in Asia' said lack of sufficient democratic checks and balances in three countries (Cambodia, Bangladesh and Thailand) has undermined faith in election and helped to create the conditions for civil unrest. Autocratic and corrupt political leaders have used government agencies, in some cases over decades, to serve themselves and their cronies. While Bangladesh has made significant progress in reducing poverty and improving public health, Hasina and Khaleda Zia have often sacrificed the country's stability to settle scores with each other and have done little to strengthen institutions like the judiciary and the police.
Another newspaper Bloomberg under the heading 'Bangladesh needs real election' in its editorial on January 16 said, in Bangladesh's parliamentary elections, everyone lost. The vote was marred by bloodshed, boycotted by the opposition, and notable mostly for a dearth of actual voters. Running largely unopposed, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's Awami League had won majority seats even before polls opened. Yet, no government that is formed out of these elections will ever command solid domestic or international support. While analysing economic prospect including  reducing poverty, dropping infant mortality, increasing participation of women in workforce and improving health and education sectors, Bloomberg suggested holding a credible new election by caretaker government or by all parties' coalition government with a neutral figure serving as Prime Minister to save Bangladesh.
The Economist is of the opinion that many polling stations saw almost no voters, then suspiciously large numbers of ballots were cast late in the day. Of the 300 constituencies, 153 had no contest at all since only candidates of the Awami League or its allies submitted nomination papers in those constituencies.
The Time magazine reporting on January 06 said political foes Hasina and Zia have been swapping power in Bangladesh since the 1990s and this bloody elections is seen by many as part of the continuum of their long and destructive rivalry. Their enmity has cast a long shadow over many of the laudable gains the crowded South Asian nation has made in recent years, including reducing poverty and infant mortality rate and improving immunisation coverage, among other achievements.
The Guardian of the UK in its report on January 15 under the heading 'Violence and abysmal turnout underscore depths of national political crisis', said, Bangladesh has little to celebrate after the most violent Election Day in its history. The absence of opposition parties raises concerns about the credibility of the elections. Hasina regime's record of human rights abuses and level of corruption are serious and it is disconcerting the pro-government newspapers and elite commentators overlook this.
Deutche Welle, German government-financed radio, said in a commentary of January 07 the two old women of Bangladesh politics do not respect each other as players in the political system. Instead, they have allowed their political rivalry to mushroom into a bitter personal feud, illustrated by an acrimonious telephone call just before the election campaign. This feud has blinded them to the needs of their country. Neither of them is willing to compromise for the sake of national interests.
The major theme of reporting by the international news media is that the interest of the country should receive priority instead of personal feud and achievements that have been made by Bangladesh as of now should be part of a continuous process.  Independent judiciary and police force, free from political influence, should be established to ensure justice to all Bangladeshis irrespective of religion and any political parties. As the January 05 election has little credibility, new elections should be held as soon as possible.
In the word of Woodrow Wilson, scholar-president of America: "The government should serve society, by no means rule or dominate it. The government should not be made an end in itself; it is a means only, a means to be freely adapted to advance the best interests of the social organism. The state exists for the sake of society, not society for the sake of the state."
The writer is a retired               Bangladeshi diplomat. amjad.21@gmail.com