IN HIS third address to the nation on September 11, Muhammad Yunus, the chief adviser to the interim government, announced the formation of six commissions to effect reforms in the judiciary, electoral system, civil administration, the police, Anti-Corruption Commission and the constitution. He also named the chairs of the commissions selected based on their expertise and experiences in the functioning of the bodies. The chief adviser gave the commissions three months to draw up the reforms before meeting the political parties for their feedback. ‘The aim of the reforms is to have a state system based on public ownership, accountability, and welfare,’ the chief adviser said.

The chief adviser added, ‘We believe that imposing the dominance of the majority or misrule on the people under the guise of elections or concentrating all power in the grips of one person, family, or group, is unacceptable.’ To prevent this happening from one election cycle to another, the chief adviser and his cabinet felt it imperative to reform the Election Commission and other government agencies involved in safeguarding free and fair elections.

Seemingly, being impressed by the outline of the chief adviser, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party’s secretary general  Mirza Fakhrul Islam and leaders of some Islamic parties said that they would not impose any time frame as to when to hold the elections. At a party gathering on September 15, however, Fakhrul suggested that elections should be held in two months contrary to his earlier stand that he had held a week before, thus, putting uncalled for pressure on the chief adviser. Why so? Time is of the essence.

With a surge in popularity of Dr Shafiqur Rahman, amir of the Jamaat-e-Islami and other Islamic parties, and the possibility of a national citizens committee developing into a fully-fledged political party, Fakhrul may have reasons to push for the holding of elections as early as possible. However, no political party is in any position to dictate the tenure and terms of office of the interim government, more so, given that they have an ignominious past. We must not forget that the chief adviser and his cabinet are integral and inseparable parts of people. They were sent to power by the students, workers and people at a desperate juncture to restore law and order and cleanse the Augean stables left by the kleptocratic administration of Sheikh Hasina.

Political science literature promotes two widely popular theories of democratic governance: (a) the ruling elite theory and (b) the pluralist theory. In the ruling elite theory, affluent and erudite citizens play a lopsided authority over political and economic decisions in the government. In the pluralist theory, by contrast, various groups and alliances, not just the elite, frequently compete for government attention and favour to acquire the ability to wield political power even if their dominance is transitory. Aristotle wrote: ‘It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to be only guardians, and the servants of the laws.’ One may, therefore, uphold and defend the chief adviser to the interim government and his cabinet a living example in action in Aristotle’s vision of a government acting as ‘guardians and the servant of the laws.’

No single or collection of non-conforming political parties in any democracy, however enlightened they may be, can bring forth a consensus-driven reform in various organs of the government left in near total politicisation, thoroughly corrupt and on the brink of collapse than an interim government of the like led by the chief adviser. A political party, however well-intentioned, will always try to protect the party’s interest and tend to be averse to reforms that are politically disadvantageous, operationally less power sharing, and monetary inducements more restrictive. Politicians in any society are not pursuing a career in politics by being solely virtuous and altruistic. In my lexicon, the word ‘politician’ has long been thought of as an acronym for: ‘people of little incentive to instil commitment in avoiding notoriety.’

It is, therefore, insightful that the chief adviser to the interim government in his third address has emphasised that another opportunity to reform the government may never come again. With a calm and pensive demeanour, he passionately pleaded, ‘Stay with us. We will reform together. It is everyone’s responsibility. Bring reform to your own sphere while adding that the reform of a nation is not just the reform of the government.’

The primary goal of the interim government is to bring institutional reforms to establish good governance. A regime of good governance assures that corruption is minimised, minorities’ concerns are mitigated and voices of the most vulnerable are reflected in decision-making. Good governance requires that institutions and processes should try to serve all stakeholders within a reasonable time frame. Not too many countries have come close to achieving good governance in its entirety. However, to ensure sustainable human development, efforts must at least be made to try and achieve this ideal to the extent feasible within the constraints of available resources.

One intriguing question is whether the elected government would have the frame of mind to live up to the lofty expectations and altruistic goals of the reforms being formulated by the interim government. Living up to the modus operandi of good governance requires a government to be accountable, transparent, responsive, equitable and inclusive, effective and efficient, participatory, consensus-oriented and, most of all, the one that follows the rule of law. If a government follows the rule of law, the remaining seven features will be set in motion automatically as good governance and rule of law are two sides of the same coin.

The operation of the reformed organs of the government is expected to set standards for the elected government in terms of achieving both efficiency and goals. This is often referred to as ecosystem governance. Some key features of ecosystem governance include setting priorities, ensuring alignment, clarifying and overseeing decision rights, guiding acceptable behaviour and conduct, etc.

As for accountability, one may construe that the interim government advisers are mutually accountable to each other and that all 21 individuals cannot all be doing undesirable things concurrently. They have already displayed zero tolerance for any controversy or inefficiency in their day-to-day dealings. For example, Sakhawat Hussain was moved from the home affairs ministry to the jute and textiles ministry. However, the interim government may collectively be considered ‘benevolent reformers’ committed to cleaning up the Augean stable of the last kleptocratic government.

Will the elected government ever be able to match the performance of the interim government in terms of producing and delivering public goods? Of course, not. One hurdle, aside from the entrenched conflict between party interests and public interests, is that the elected government will have to channel official activities through the often-conflicted bureaucracy and the parliament. The difference between the modus operandi of the two is that the interim government operates like a ‘benevolent reformer’ with little or no accountability and bureaucracy is standing ready with red tapes cut short for fear of dismissal while the elected government will be constrained to run the affairs within the framework of parliamentary democracy and the constitution.

There is a difference between ruling a country and running a country? In Western democracies, people do not use the term ruling the country widely used in autocracies such as North Korea and monarchies and other autocracies. A democratic government runs a country by following the rule of law enacted by peoples representatives. Our people will, I hope, never again be ruled by anybody.

Dr Abdullah A Dewan (adewan@emich.edu), formerly a physicist and nuclear engineer at BAEC, is an emeritus professor of economics at Eastern Michigan University, USA.