Seven 'take-aways' from The Leaked Phone Call

Here are seven initial take-aways from the leaked conversation between Bangladesh's prime minister and the opposition leader that took place on Saturday 26 October.

Two different versions of the transcripts of the conversations are available on line: that of The Dhaka Tribune and that of the Daily Ittefaq. The original taped conversation (in Bangla) is here

1. The government recorded the conversation and leaked it

A day before the conversation was broadcast on Ekkatorer TV, the information minster stated that the government should publish the contents of the conversation between the two woman. One can be pretty confident that the conversation was therefore recorded by the government and then leaked by its officials. That it was leaked to Ekkatorer (rather than any other broadcaster) also fits into this picture - since it is a reliable pro-governemnt broadcaster.

2. Publication will have negative repercussions for future dialogue

Perhaps the BNP expected the conversation to be recorded and leaked (and perhaps the BNP were even recording the conversation themselves), however, it is more than likely that the Khaleda Zia did not expect that the conversation would be published without her consent. This inevitably increases the levels of mistrust between the two woman - and the two parties - which are already pretty much at rock bottom.

Can the BNP ever assume that any future conversations - between the two woman, or at a lower level in the party - will not be recorded and put in the public domain? How can negotiations take place when one of the parties thinks that the other one may be recording the conversation and possibly considering publishing if they believe they can get political benefit.

In such a situation, it is difficult to see how future negotiations between these two parties can take place

3. Hasina's invitation, Khaleda's rebuke

The invitation by Hasina came quite soon into the conversation - before a lot of the more antagonistic dialogue between the two women. At this early stage, Zia refused to meet Hasina before the Hartal had finished, or to consider calling it off. Subsequently Zia says that she cannot call it off as she would have to consult with all the other members of the alliance, and that had Hasina called on Friday, then it may have been possible.

As I have written elsewhere, this rejection was a strategic mistake by Khaleda The transcript also shows that the reasons for her not accepting the invitation are really not justifiable. Khaleda said in her speech that she would hold a hartal unless the prime minister initiated dialogue - and this is what Hasina is doing though this conversation. It was clearly not too late to call of the hartal, or at the very least agree to meet each other with the hartal ongoing.

4. It was Hasina who first starts making the accusations

There is much accusation and counter accusation in this conversation, but it is worth noting that it was Hasina who started to raise the allegations first, when she said near the beginning of the conversation: 'Killing people, throwing fires... stop these.'

It was also Hasina who brought up the August 21 grenade attack. 'I remember everything, I remember the August 21 grenade attack...'

And later again she said, 'Will you keep killing people in the name of hartal?'

And she is the also one who brings up the issue of Khaleda's decision to hold her birthday on 15 August - the day the prime minister's family was assassinated.

These are of course justifiable resentments that Hasina can hold against the BNP, but they are obviously completely irrelevant in terms of seeking to initiate a dialogue and, whether intentionally or not, increase the likelihood of derailing any possible dialogue

5. The burden of history

Those who know Bangladesh politics know how much the burden of the past lies heavily on the shoulders of the present - and this conversation is a reflection of this.

1971, post 1971, Ershad, 1991, 2004 - it was all there scattered around the conversation preventing the possibility of any clear thinking about the future.

This is of course the reason why there do remain many who believe that it is the two women - and the history that they together bring - which is such a key problem for the politics of Bangladesh which will not flourish until a new breed of politicians, unconnected to these families, finally takes over. There however seems no signs of that - as both women's sons remain ever-present in the background.

6. The victor?

The Awami League government must have thought that Hasina came out of the conversation better than Khaleda - otherwise it would not have allowed it to published.

This is also seem by Hasina's son Sajeeb Wazed statement in a note on face book  that Khaleda emerged as 'rude and combative'. And the prime minister herself appears to feel much the same.

Unsurprisingly, of course, the BNP are stating that it was Zia's combative style that made her the victor, and the word on the street is that BNP activists are quite chuffed by their leader's role.

Whether people think BNP/AL won or not, very much depends on what they think of Khaleda's dominant/agreessive role in the conversation, and their view on whether they consider Hasina was inappropriately provoking Khaleda.

Whilst in many other countries, Khaleda's style may be perceived negatively as bullying, this may not be the way it is seen here in Bangladesh.

7. .... And of course, the dead parrot

There is a famous monty python sketch (a 1960's British comedy group) when a man comes into a pet shop and accuses the shopkeeper of selling him a dead parrot. 

At the beginning of the phone conversation between the two women and then again midway through it there are long sections in which the women just consider whether or not Khaleda's red phone was dead or not. 

If nothing else, this conversation will make fantastic material for a Bangladeshi comedian. The dead phone sketch!Here are two extracts about the 'dead phone'

Hasina: I called you around noon, but unfortunately you didn’t pick up. I want to invite you.
Khaleda: This is not correct. You have to listen to what I have to say. You say you called in the afternoon, but I received no call. The hotline has been inactive for years now.
Hasina: But I called to the red phone personally.
Khaleda: The red phone has been dead for a long a time. You run the government, and you don’t even know the Opposition Leader’s phone is dead.
Hasina: Red phone is never out of order.
Khaleda Zia: Send your people over right now, and let them check.
Hasina: You know that red phone always works.
Khaleda: It always works, but mine is not working at all. I checked it just recently. If you don’t tell the truth, it will not work.
Hasina: There’s nothing I can do if you lie. I know I have called several times.
Khaleda: Can a dead person come alive? How can a dead phone come to life all of a sudden?
Hasina: Ok, so for some reason you weren’t able to receive the phone.
Khaleda: No, that is not true. I have been sitting here. It is a small space. I cannot miss a phone call. There is no reason not to answer if a phone call comes.
Hasina: The phone was either dead or kept dead…
Khaleda: It was dead. Several complaints were made. There is no one I can talk with through the red phone. Thus, who will I talk with?
Hasina: I will look into why your phone was dead tomorrow.
Khaleda: It is good that you will see to it. .......

Hasina: Your phone is all right.
Khaleda: My phone is not okay.
Hasina: I called up 10-12 times. The phone rang.
Khaleda: Do you think we were all deaf? That the phone rang and we did not hear? You might hear it.
Hasina: How will I hear? One of my ear is damaged.
Khaleda: It is you who have said that my phone had rang, but we are saying that it didn’t.
Hasina: Phone…… Phone, I made the call myself.
Khaleda: It does not matter if you say you have called. You are saying that a dead phone has rung.
Hasina: The phone rang.
Khaleda: How will it ring? A dead phone does not ring. This is a display of your mentality, and it shows if you are telling the truth or not.
Hasina: I am telling the truth.
Khaleda: I checked the phone yesterday [Saturday]. We told your people that the phone was dead, but no one came. Nobody thinks of us as human, nobody feels it important to fix our telephone.
Hasina: Why are you blaming the telephone and telling a lie?
Khaleda: [snaps] Why will I tell lies? A dead telephone is dead.
Hasina: …21602, I remember.
Khaleda: You might have the number memorised, or written down somewhere nearby, but the fact is that the telephone is dead. Nobody will believe anything else otherwise.
Hasina: A cameraman once came…This is nothing. The telephone exchange can be contacted to know what had really happened…
Khaleda: Who of Gulshan Exchange said that the phone was ringing? Actions should be taken against that person.
Hasina: The red telephone of yours belongs to a separate exchange.
Khaleda: That is true…Why is it being said that the phone was okay…Did the person you spoke to tell you as such? I was sitting here waiting for the phone call. We talked over the phone many times, during anti-Ershad campaigns that we waged together. Why will we not talk? We talked so many times, went to your home, why not talk now? Come let us sit together for talks for the sake of the country.

Bangladesh Nationalist Party's strategic advantage at risk

David Bergman

It may seen ridiculous to suggest that either of Bangladesh’s main political parties could these days ever be seated on any moral high ground, but in relation to the argument concerning the election time government, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party was on it, and now – arguably - isn’t.

The political situation in Bangladesh is fast changing and so months down the line, when everything comes out in the wash, the decision on Saturday by Khaleda Zia to reject the invitation by the prime-minister for dinner at her official residence, and to continue with the hartal, may of course not seem that relevant.

At the large rally on Friday, Khaleda Zia announced that there would be a three day hartal from Sunday onwards unless the prime-minister initiated dialogue to solve the political stalemate around the nature of the election time government.

This seemed a clever move - suggesting that the BNP wanted to find a solution through diplomacy. There was the stick of the hartal, for sure, but one which could easily be averted by a phone call from the Prime Minister.

BNP was on the moral high ground.

And so on Saturday, the prime-minister decided to do what apparently Zia had wanted her to do - phone her up and start the process of dialogue by inviting the opposition leader to a dinner at her official residence on Monday.

You might expect that the BNP would see this as a victory – their demand had forced the prime minister to make a phone call. This might not seem much, but this must be just about the first demand made by the BNP in the last five years which the government has actually accepted, and immediately at that.

However, Bangladesh politicians have reversed clausevitz’s famous aphorism; for them, or for many of them, politics in this country is the continuation of war by other means.

The BNP could not simply just accept the prime minister’s offer - they had to give her and the Awami League a bloody nose first.

For them, this ultimately was what the three day hartal was all about; trying to show the Awami League that the ruling party no longer had control of ‘the streets’ and could not necessarily depend on the law enforcement agencies.

Attacks on Awami Leaguers and their supporters are an intrinsic part of this hartal – to send a message to the ruling party that their time is up; that the opposition is organizationally strong, and can muster people to take on the government if the time was necessary.

And only when this message has been given, would the BNP then sit down for a dialogue – as only then, so their logic went, might the government actually take its demands seriously.

So when faced with the offer of dinner what did Zia do? She refused the dinner until the 60 hour hartal had finished.

Now, the country is back to square one - there has to be another phone call, another offer, and quite reasonably the Awami League prime minister may well question why she should go through another phone call when the opposition leader has failed to keep the terms of her previous public commitment.

Losing the moral high ground is one thing, but how will this affect the BNP’s strategic advantage

For that is what the BNP has at the moment.

The polls universally show that the BNP’s demand for a caretaker government is popular throughout the country even amongst AL supporters, and these same polls also show, with the BNP ten percentage points ahead of the AL, that the opposition party has the most to gain from free and fair elections and the ruling party most to lose.

In addition Western diplomats – as well as apparently those from China - stand much closer to the BNP’s position which is that there should be a neutral interim government, than the position of the AL which is that elections should take place under a party government.

These diplomats also accept that the BNP is right to question whether free and fair elections can take place without, at the very least Hasina standing down from the head of any election-time government – and so for them, it is Hasina who has to move towards the BNP position.

What this all means that is that - unless of course the Awami League comes out with a reasonable offer which the main opposition party rejects - these countries are highly unlikely to send election observers to any election in which the BNP does not participate, and will not recognize the result of any Awami League victory.

So, the BNP has the support of the majority of Bangladeshis as well as that of the international community in seeking concessions from the Awami League government. It is on the right side of this particular argument, and assuming that it is actually willing to negotiate with the ruling party, it will either win the concessions or, if it doesn’t, it will win the support of the international community if the AL tries to conduct the election alone.

This is a strong position to be in. Clearly there remain uncertainties - the role of India, for example, as a counter to the western countries. But nonetheless, the  BNP is well placed.

But this can so easily be lost.

Violence, strategically instigated by the opposition, will result in it losing support from the international community who will increasingly listen to the siren voices of the Awami League that are tirelessly telling diplomats that the BNP/Jamaat are a dangerous political alternative.

Whilst arguments about the nature of the next BNP government are of course separate from those about an election time government, they will inevitably impact upon how willing the diplomatic community would be in the future to question the legitimacy of elections under an Awami League government in which the BNP does not participate.

In addition, hartals and violence will not help the BNP sustain its popularity in the country.

Hartals are very unpopular; in a January 2013 Nielsen/Democracy International poll, over 90 percent of people viewed them as ‘bad.’ And violence perpetrated by the BNP/Jamaat will only tend to feed into the Awami League’s rhetoric of what people have to fear from the opposition winning the election.

Of course in the Bangladesh political activist’s mindset – where politics is just another form of war – there is a belief that people will only support the party if it is seen as a victor. They do not subscribe to the view that violence will necessary make them unpopular - giving the govt a bit a beating in their eyes only adds to their popularity.

If the BNP do allow themselves to be seduced by these arguments, they will however see their strategic advantage soon disappearing.

And that is not good for those who want to see a free and fair elections under some kind of government acceptable to both parties.

The BNP should put all their effort into dialogue and forcing, through legitimate political action, a change in the AL’s position on the election time government.

Hartals and political violence are a dead end – and only add to the risk of the possibility of the army stepping in.

And if that were to happen all bets are off as to which party will come out better the other end.

Diplomats warn government that without BNP, elections not credible

David Bergman 

Western countries will not support elections without the participation of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party unless the party turned down a ‘reasonable’ offer to end the current political stalemate, senior diplomats from major Western embassies in Bangladesh have told Bangladesh Politico. 

‘If the Awami League government comes up with a reasonable proposal on the composition of an election government, and the BNP does not agree with it, we would not want to endorse such a boycott,’ said one diplomat, who like all the others spoke openly on condition that the identity of their respective embassies remained undisclosed. 

‘But if the government is not serious and does not negotiate in good faith, then there is likely to be a decision not to send election observers,’ he added. 

Another diplomat said, ‘If the BNP withdraws on reasonable grounds, there is a strong balance of probability that observer missions will not deploy.’ 

The senior diplomats, belonging to five different embassies, were speaking as the first tentative steps were being made by the two major parties to start a dialogue about accommodating each other's demands on the nature of the government that will organize the country's national elections due to take place by 24 January 2014.

In 2011, the current Awami League government changed the constitution removing provisions that had since 1996 allowed a technocratic caretaker government to take charge of the country for a three months prior prior to holding national elections. The BNP have been demanding the restoration of the caretaker government.

The senior diplomats who spoke to Bangladesh Politico accepted the BNP position - which recent opinion polls show is also the majority view throughout the country - that an election under a political government with Sheikh Hasina as acting prime-minister would not be fair.

‘’We do not think there is a level playing field now between the parties,’ one European diplomat said, pointing to the politicised administration. ‘Local MPs remain very influential, and no police chief will go against Sheikh Hasina even if she is only acting prime minister.’

Another said: ‘If the Prime minister continued to have power, she can manipulate the administration to the support the Awami League’

However, at the same time, the diplomats are of the view that if the government did try to manipulate the election on the scale that opinion polls now suggest would be necessary to obtain an Awami League win, it would be detected.

‘We have told the BNP that they have to have trust in us,’ one of the embassy officials said. ‘If there is daylight robbery of the election, if the AL tries to cook the books, we will call it.’

The diplomats are in particular putting their trust in an exercise of election observation being undertaken by the international non-government organization Democracy International.

By monitoring thousands of polling centres chosen randomly round the country the organisation will be able to determine whether the results announced by the election commission in each of the constituencies reflected the votes counted at the polling station levels.

‘If we say that we will discover a cooked election, then we have to mean it. Our credibility within Bangladesh and the rest of the world is on the line here,’ the same diplomat said.

He also pointed to the importance of the recent polling.

‘Remember, if the election polls continue to show before the election that the BNP is leading, and the election commission announces radically different results, we will clearly know that something is wrong,’ he added.

The diplomats emphasized that they were trying to deal with each party equally, explaining to each of them that they both had much to lose by not coming to an accommodation.

‘We want the AL to realize that they should not take international observers for granted, and for the BNP to realize that we will not necessarily remove observers if there is a boycott,’ one of the European diplomats said.

Another diplomat pointed out that the BNP should understand that it cannot ‘overplay its hand’ pointing out that in 2008, when the BNP were calling for the election to be delayed that the party were then told, ‘you can do what you want, but the elections will go ahead and we will say that the process is legitimate.’

‘If the BNP overplay their hand this time, then we might say to them that you are being stubborn and that we will go ahead and monitor the elections.’

As to what would be considered ‘objectively reasonable grounds’ that would justify the BNP withdrawing from the election, the diplomats were not clear.

‘We will know it when we see it,’ one of the non-European ambassadors said.

‘We will need to see what is the quality of the offer made by the Awami League’ another diplomat stated.

However, a number of the diplomats suggested that it would at the minimum have to involve Sheikh Hasina giving away her powers as prime minister. ‘It would have to be closer to BNP’s current position than the AL’s,’ one ambassador said.

The diplomats told Bangladesh Politico that they were uncertain whether Awami League was listening to what they had to say, with one of the embassy officials saying that it appeared that the prime minister seemed to think that internal BNP dynamics would force Khaleda Zia to take part in the election without her having to make any political accommodation.

‘We have told the Awami League, that it should not take this for granted,’ this diplomat said.

The diplomats were aware that if they did not send observers to an election without BNP participation, the AL might think it could get away with inflating the voter turnout to provide the election the appearance of greater credibility.

‘What happens, lets just say speculatively, if the election results came out as 221 seats for the AL and 79 seats for the Jatiya party, and the government says that it was on a 65 percent turnout. If there was no observers, no parallel vote tabulation, how can we possibly say whether the figures are accurate or not?’ one diplomat asked, recognizing that the decision to pull the observers will create its own difficulties.

However, the diplomats were unanimously of the view that even if India and Russia were to support the Awami League if the party tried to push a ahead with elections without the rest of the international community’s support, the post-election government would not be sustainable.

‘If a vast amount of the international community does not accept the elections, Awami League could not solider on without any fig leaf of a mandate’, one senior embassy official said.

But the diplomats were keen to warn the BNP that it should not assume that '1996 would happen again' - which was when the tables were turned and the AL, then in opposition, boycotted the election and were able to force a second election under a neutral government which they then won.

It may just as easily result, the diplomats warned, in the army coming to power. ‘And where would that leave the BNP,’ one diplomat said.

‘There is of course the old adage, that both of the ladies would prefer the army than the other one in power,’ the official chuckled, referring to Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia, the leaders of the two parties.

Bangladesh army rejected foreign assistance over Rana Plaza collapse

Six month after the Rana Plaza building collapse

Bangladesh army rejected foreign assistance over Rana Plaza collapse

David Bergman

Bangladesh’s armed forces division rejected offers of foreign assistance to help with the search and rescue of those who were buried under the nine floor Rana Plaza building in Savar which collapsed six months ago on 24 April killing 1503 people, including the 376 bodies which are thought to remain under the building debris.

The Assistant Defence Attaché at the US embassy in Dhaka, told Bangladesh Politico that within a few hours of the building’s collapse he and a number of other military attaches called their counterparts in the Bangladesh army to offer assistance, but that the offers were rejected.

Bangladesh Politico can also reveal that within 12 hours of the building collapsing, Signapore, Japan, South Korea and the United Arab Emirates had made it known through the United Nation’s Virtual On-site Operations Coordination Centre, that they had an interest in sending a search and rescue team to Bangladesh.

Three of those countries had teams with sufficient personnel and capacity to operate at ‘two separate sites for up to 10 days’ on a 24 hour basis. The website of the UN coordination centre is accessible to Bangladesh government officials and emergency rescue managers.

In May, the NewAge newspaper disclosed that the United Nations Humanitarian advisor had phoned the director general of the fire-brigade on the day of the collapse about the option of the government requesting search and rescue teams through the United Nation’s International Search and Rescue Advisory Group (INSARAG), but that the Food and Disaster ministry had shown no interest.

The paper had also revealed that the day after the building collapse, the government had rejected a formal offer by the UK government to send ‘technical advisory support aimed at addressing the apparent gap in technical coordination capacity.’

In response to these disclosures at the time, Home Secretary Mustak Ahmed said, “The need for immediate foreign assistance was not felt because our rescue operation has been sufficient and exemplary.”

Safe and rescue experts have however told Bangladesh Politico that lives would likely to have been saved if foreign expertise and equipment was utilized at the time.

In an interview, Lieutenant Colonel David Lopes, the US army Assistant Defence Attaché based at the embassy in Dhaka, said that as soon as he heard about the building collapse on 24 April, he called his counterpart Lieutenant Colonel J M Emdadul Islam, the head of joint operations within the Armed Forces Division’s plans and operations directorate which is integrated within the prime minister’s office.

‘I personally called and spoke to my counterpart in the Bangladesh army,’ Colonel Lopes said. ‘I asked, “Do you need assistance?” and he said something like “No, not at this time. We will contact you if needed.”

‘Lieutenant Colonel Emdad works under the principal staff officer [Lieutenant General Abu Belal Mohammad Shafiul Haque]. Anything that comes from Emdad comes from Belal which comes from the prime minister,’ the US assistant defence attache added.

Colonel Lopes said that at the time he made his call it was not clear what the US government could offer. ‘This call was made pre-planning. Possibly we could have sent search and rescue teams, but I have no idea how quickly we could have got them here.’

‘The Bangladesh government has to formally ask us for assistance. Until formal request given, we can’t do anything,’ he said.

Lieutenant Colonel Emdad confirmed that the US military attaché had called him about providing assistance.

‘Lopes called me asked me whether we needed assistance and I clarified the situation with my bosses and they said that whatever equipment we have, we are utilising those and at present that we do not need any assistance,’ Colonel Emdad said.

‘It was not rejected. We appreciated their desire to help, but decision of our authority was that probably we could run the rescue with whatever we had at present.’

Colonel Emdad said that his ‘boss’ at the time was the Director General of the operation plan directorate, Md Jahangir Kabir Talukder, who has since been promoted to the rank of major-general.

The US Colonel also said that the defence attaches of the UK and Chinese embassies had made similar offers, with similar results. ‘I spoke to both of them and I told them about my conversation and they said they had done the same thing and got the same answer.’

A spokesperson for the British High Commission had earlier confirmed that on the day of the collapse it had been in contact with the government making it known that they could request international search and rescue teams from the United Nation’s International Search and Rescue Advisory Group.

It has not been possible to obtain a response from the Chinese defence attaché.

Bangladesh Politico has also learnt that within hours of the building collapse four countries had signed on to the United Nation’s organized Virtual On-site Operations Coordination Centre which is part of Global Disaster Alert and Co-ordination system stating that they were ‘monitoring’ the situation.

Terje Skavdal, the Geneva-based head of INSARAG told Bangladesh Politico that, ‘Signapore, Japan, South Korea and United Arab Emirates had marked on the website that they were “monitoring” the [Rana Plaza] situation. This means that if there were to have been a request for assistance from Bangladesh, they could be in a position to send a team.’

‘It could be an indication that a team can be sent, but it is no guarantee that the country can send it. There are other protocols that need to be sorted out, like who will pay for the deployment. So you can have a rescue team “monitoring” the situation, but not sure whether there is agreement at that point on the part of the government to deploy resources to send the team,” he said.

Another UN official with access to the Virtual On-site Operations Coordination Centre also told New Age that “Singapore and Republic of Korea had started monitoring the situation from 1.35pm [on the day of the collapse], then Japan also started later in the evening, of the same day.’

‘These teams could have intervened anytime if requested by Bangladesh. The teams are monitoring a situation [which means they are] ready to deploy upon request from an affected country,’ the senior official told New Age on condition of anonymity.

‘Rescue teams could have been ready to come within 24 hours of any formal request,’ he added.

Signapore, Japan and South Korea are certified by INSARAG as having ‘heavy’ search and rescue teams’ with over 30 members. This certification means that each of the teams could have been able to operate in two separate places, 24 hours a day, for a ten day period and have ‘the operational capability for difficult and complex technical search and rescue operations … typically found in urban settings, when national response capacity has either been overwhelmed or does not possess the required capability.’ United Arab Emirates is certified as a ‘medium’ team.

Two UK based search and rescue experts told Bangladesh Politico that Bangladesh’s rescue effort could have gained from the presence of a small team of experts with experience and equipment and that lives could have been saved.

Rob Davis, the team leader of Search and Rescue Assistance in Disasters, with 18 years of experience in the area, emphasized how search and rescue dogs used along with specialist location equipment would have helped find people buried in the collapsed building.

‘It is unbelievable what these dogs can do,’ Davis said. ‘They can find where smells are coming from and can do it quickly. Using dogs along with sensitive sound location equipment, which can operate in a ten metre radius depending on collapse pattern and debris, you can identify exactly where people are located.’

He agreed that the presence of additional expertise and equipment, working alongside the Bangladesh team at Rana Plaza, ‘could well have saved some lives.’

Willie McMartin, the operational director of International Rescue Corps, who has himself been involved in 32 international rescues, said that INSARAG teams like his would have brought ‘experience and equipment.’

‘There is a huge difference between someone who has only been trained and someone who has actually attended a number of structural collapses of different kinds and who has experience to draw upon,’ he said.

‘A team could have brought sound location equipment, flexible endoscopy camera equipment, and carbon dioxide detectors. Location equipment is very specialised, and would have been useful,’ he said.

McMartin however pointed out that from what he understood the Bangladesh authorities had undertaken a ‘good rescue effort’, and that whilst additional assistance from abroad would have saved ‘some lives,’ it may not have been large numbers.

Bangladesh, has been a member of INSARAG since July 2012.

Two months before formally joining the organization, the government had hosted a four day INSARAG workshop part of which explained how the group worked, how disasters should be reported effectively and how governments can seek foreign assistance.

Khaleda's latest salvo: Smart with an eye on the international community

Khaleda Zia, the head of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party made a speech at the Westin hotel today (21 Oct 2013) concerning the future elections in Bangaldesh.

The BNP has made what they called an 'informal' translation which was sent around to diplomats and others, and this has been pasted below. 

Bangladesh is at a crucial moment in this current election cycle with a lack of clarity on whether elections (supposed to happen by 24 January 2024) will take place at all, and if so under what political dispensation. 

Following a constitutional change in 1996, the last three elections have taken place under a 'caretaker government'. The current Awami League government however changed the constitution so that elections would return to being conducted under a political government - on the justification (a) that Bangladesh was now able to carry out fair elections under a political government and (b) that having elections under a political government would reduce the risk of a takeover by the army (which happened in January 2007 under a caretaker government, for a two year period).

The BNP, for its part, has been demanding that the elections take place under some kind of caretaker/interim administration - a view that opinion polls suggest is popular. The party has said that if the current AL government does not agree to this, then it will boycott the elections. 

A few days ago, Sheikh Hasina, the prime minister and leader of the AL, made some overtures towards dialogue, suggesting that the BNP should produce some names that could be included in an election-time cabinet. No other details were given.

The speech below was Khaleda Zia's response. It also touched on a number of other important issues - perhaps with more than half an eye on soothing some of the concerns of the international diplomatic community here in Dhaka - which gives the speech some additional significance.

Here are my initial thoughts on the speech: Militancy; India; Minorities; End of Revenge: Election Proposal

1. Militancy

Zia takes on the Awami League's constant assertion that the last BNP government was a haven for islamic militancy, and that Bangladesh faces a significant threat if the BNP is allowed back into power, with its alliance with the Jamaat-e-Islami and Hefajet-e-Islami. AL has a strong hand on this issue and nothing more concerns the international community that how BNP will deal with Islamic militancy.

Whilst it is true, as Zia states, that it was the BNP which, during its last government (2001-2006), put to death the militant JMB leaders, it is also clear that at least certain factions within the BNP (perhaps only limited to local leaders) had allowed the organization to prosper. There was also of course the August 2004 grenade attack on Sheikh Hasina herself that led to the deaths of over 20 people, which at the very least is suggestive of a lax attitude to terrorist activity.

So Khaleda's defence of her party's past - and indeed her criticism of the Awami League period of government - is not entirely convincing.

What though is perhaps most significant is what she says about the future.

I want to emphatically state that Bangladesh is an important partner in the international fight against militancy. My government initiated this cooperation. We will not only continue the current level of this cooperation, but will explore ways and means to expand it with other countries and institutions as an active member of the coalition for the war against terrorism. We have to remember that terrorism is a threat to peace, stability, sustained economic development and foreign direct investment. Over and above this, terrorism and militancy endangers national interest and brings disrepute to Islam, the religion of the majority of our population. It is a transnational crime that threatens the quality of life of our own citizen and those of the world at large. We are committed to ensuring that Bangladesh territory will never be used for domestic, regional, international or any other form of terrorism.

Whilst people in Bangladesh are obviosuly concerned about these issues, it is much more likely that these words were crafted to be heard by the international community - the countries of the West and the country's neighbor, India - which are particularly concerned about how a future BNP government may take on this issue. Whilst in many ways, this is the least that the BNP could say - who would not say this to ease the international community's concerns? - it will no doubt help the BNP.

2. India

Khaleda Zia spent a few paragraphs in her speech on South Asia regionalism which appears also to have been directly at engaging with the concerns of India, and perhaps trying to encourage the current Indian government to take a more neutral position in its relationship between the two parties. This is also the kind of thing that the wider international community like to hear.

We cannot deny that problems between neighbouring countries have existed and will exist in the future. This is no different than other regions of the world. I believe firmly that such problems are not so intractable that they cannot be resolved through honest dialogue and constant exchange of views while respecting mutual interests. At the heart of resolving these differences is not simply government to government contact and communications, but rather it also encompasses people to people relationships.

3. Minorities
One of the constant criticisms of the BNP has been its discriminatory practices or at least prejudice towards the Hindu minority. For example, most recently, after the BNP's victory in the election in 2001, there were widespread reports that Hindu communities were subject to attack by BNP supporters.

Zia tries also to take this on. She said:

Of particular concern to us are some of the most vulnerable citizens of Bangladesh, our ethnic and religious minorities. Unfortunately they have not always enjoyed equal protection under our laws and there have been instances when religious minorities have faced persecution including attacks on their houses and places of worship. This must stop. Under our Government all citizens will be guaranteed equal protection and individuals who persecute minorities will face the full weight of the law.

It is unlikely whether this will really have an impact upon the perceptions of the Hindu minority - but it is certainly interesting that she feels a need to engage with this issue directly

4. End of Revenge
One of the big concerns of any return of the BNP, is that the party will take its revenge on the AL, for everything that the AL has done to it since it took power in 2009. After each election in Bangladesh, the revenge by the winning party against the losing party, gets harsher - poisoning the possibility of any real democratic stability in the country,

Again Zia takes this matter head on - to some extent anyway. Here is what she said.

The honourable Prime Minister in her address to the nation has spoken many ills about me, my government, party, family, and my political office. I do not wish to make any counter statement. Despite facts and evidence I will not raise any allegations against the Prime Minister, her family members or relatives. I believe enough is enough. The people of Bangladesh don't want to hear any of this any more. We have to come out of this poor culture. In the light of the expectations and aspirations of the nation, and the demand of the time we have to introduce a new trend in politics. The time has come to change and improve the political culture. Someone has to start it. Today, I stand before you with the call for that change. Of course, there will be political differences between us. We must change the way we debate these differences and insist on civil discourse rather than personal attacks. We must debate the merits of philosophies and positions on critical issues facing Bangladesh. Personal attacks serve no useful purpose and the citizens are the ultimate losers because the business of governance takes a back seat and only results in political stalemate and inaction.

I am aware that just doing lip service will not be enough. People of Bangladesh have heard  the promise of change in the past as well. That is why today I want to initiate that change by saying something very emphatically. I announce in unequivocal terms that I forgive those who in the past have unfairly treated me and my family and have made personal attacks and continue to do so. We shall not take any vengeful steps against them even if we form the government in future. I assure you that I will look ahead focus on the business of providing a brighter and more secure future for Bangladesh. I do not have time and will not spend time focusing on the past and on retaliation. I hope we can all work together to build a prosperous, peaceful and secure homeland for the future generation. I welcome the ideas and the participation of all those who have in the past been against me.

To err is human and I have no hesitation to admit that we have made mistakes in the past. At the same breath I would like to say that we have learnt from those mistakes. We are better prepared to take Bangladesh towards a brighter, more stable, and prosperous future. 

I agree with the adage – “if you fail to learn from history, history will repeat itself”. We will therefore not repeat the mistakes of the past. (emphasis added).

This is good as far as it goes - but note how she focuses on not taking revenge against those who have done wrong to her or her family, and not in relation to the perceived wrongs committed on others in her party. Zia will have to do much more than this to show that she really means this and that she can control her party including its youth and student wings from taking out their own kind of revenge on AL party members if they do win the elections.

5. The election proposal
This is what she suggested:

In 1996 and 2001 under the non-party and neutral Caretaker Governments two credible elections were held which were participated by all parties. The Advisers of those Caretaker Governments were praised by all for their neutrality. The Awami League won one of those elections while BNP the other. I am proposing that from those 20 Advisers the ruling party can propose five names and the opposition another five. They will be the Advisers in the forthcoming election time government. I propose that on the basis of a consensus between the government and the opposition parties a respected citizen of the country can be chosen to be the Chief Advisor of the interim government. 

I hope the honourable Prime Minister will accept my proposal in the interest of peace, stability and democracy. I hope she will take effective steps to hold discussions between the two parties quickly on this matter. 

I am making a fervent appeal to the honourable Prime Minister to take the initiative to form this government through the constitutional process. I would like to add that before the current Parliament is dissolved and if is felt necessary the interim government can be elected in the same way the President, the Speaker and the women MPs are elected.

Although this remains closer to the 'BNP's caretaker formula' than to the 'AL's political government with BNP participation formula' - one has to say that this is clever and an eminently reasonable proposal. By proposing the 'election' of the caretaker advisors, it may be possible for this to happen with only limited (if any) constitutional change.

I don't know if this is true but it has been reported that a number of those 20 people involved in the 1996 and 2001 caretaker governments are dead or out of action due to old age. So the proposal may need to be amended a little!

As I write it looks like the AL will reject this - however it would be unadvisable for them to do so out of hand, rather than first engaging in discussions between the parties. There is a battle going on - whether or not the politicians actually realise it - between which of the parties come out of this deadlock looking the most reasonable, and right now, with this offer, the BNP is winning that particular fight.

----------------------------

The text of the speech (as translated by BNP)

Dear friends

At this moment of national crisis I want to share a few thoughts through you with our countrymen.

The time has come today, when we must choose between democracy and autocratic rule.

All of you are aware of the situation obtaining in the country. A tragic succession of events have taken place in the last few years. The Rana Plaza collapse which killed over a thousand workers not only stunned the nation but shook the conscience of the world. The share market scam has driven 3.3 million small investors out on to the street. The scandals involving Hallmark, Destiny and the Padma Bridge not only reflect the unimaginable scale of corruption in the country but also have tarnished our image abroad.

Eminent personalities of the country are alarmed by the harassment of the country’s only Nobel winning institution Grameen Bank and our only Nobel Laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus as well as the abject humiliation of recognized citizens of the country such as human rights activist Adilur Rahman Khan and journalist Mahmudur Rahman who have been interned in jail.

In the last few years the pages of our history have been drenched by the blood of our citizens.

The indiscriminate attack on the Hefazat rally, the Pilkhana massacre, unabated extra judicial killings, the abduction and enforced diappearances of Elias Ali and Chowdhury Alam, the murder of labour leader Aminul and many other political leaders and workers have shaken the nation to the core.

People are denied justice due to the interference in and politicization of the judiciary. The killers of the journalist couple Shagor - Runi and Upazila Chairman Sanaullah Noor Babu of Boraigram, Natore have not been brought to justice. The powerful get the court verdicts as per their desire quickly. Convicted murderers get Presidential pardons. The rule of law is a far cry. The administration and police are used for narrow partisan purposes. Terrorist activities of the student and youth fronts of the ruling party have become a matter of agonizing concern for the peace loving citizens of the country.

Our image has been tarnished by the seizure of property of the Hindus and Buddhists, and attacks on their places of worship. National unity has been jeopardized. It has now become more urgent than ever before to consolidate national unity and restore confidence among the people. We must all of us together build national unity, irrespective of whether we are Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or Christians, people from the hills or the plains, rich or poor. We have to become one unified entity. We must unite for the sake of democracy, to free ourselves from uncertainty and most of all, to effect change.

The people of Bangladesh are inherently democratic. They have sacrificed a great deal for democracy. We are proud of this fact. To protect our democracy we have no other alternative but to open the door for a peaceful transfer of power through the holding of a free, fair, credible and competitive national election. How and why that door has been shut is well known to you. I do not want to enter into the details of that now.

Friends present

You are all aware that the BNP, its 18 party alliance and other opposition parties along with the great majority of people have been vocal in their demand for a neutral, non-party, poll-time government. We have taken this movement forward in a peaceful manner basically through mass contacts and campaigns. And all of you know how those peaceful and law abiding programmes continue to be obstructed. Yet, in the interest of peace and considering the sufferings of the people we did not go for any hard and long term agitation programme. We always hoped that the government would respect the demand of the people and respond positively towards the expectations of the international community. But their rigid stance and the aggressive retaliatory attitude towards the opposition and the people have frustrated these hopes.

The Prime Minister addressed the nation on the 18 October, 2013 in the backdrop of the impending general elections. There was universal expectation that in line with the hopes and wishes of the people of the country that her address would contain a clear statement about the formation of a neutral, non-party poll-time government through discussion and mutual understanding. But this was frustrated. This has become evident from the comments and reactions of a wide spectrum of conscious citizens and representatives of political parties.

The Prime Minister has outlined in her speech a long list of developmental achievements under her government. I will not comment on this. How much the nation has progressed or not is well known to our countrymen. Suffice it to say that ordinary people can well understand from their day to day experience the extent of peace, safety, security and economic well-being they are enjoying along with the fruits of development. But as is her custom the Prime Minister has delved into the past and quite untruly criticized our government.

I would like to comment briefly on this. She has alleged that terrorism and militancy spread during our time. People know how terrorism and militancy took root during the preceding Awami league regime. Unprovoked terrorist and militant attacks on the musical event by Udichi in Jessore, the New Year programme at the Ramna park, the CPB public meeting in Paltan, several political gatherings, the Ahmedia mosque in Khulna, the Christian church in Baniarchor. It was indeed during her time that a very powerful bomb was found in her own home district of Gopalganj. No proper investigation of any of these incidents was conducted. The opposition party was invariably blamed and its leaders were arrested and harassed while the real culprits were shielded.

Terrorism and militancy during the Awami League regime spilled over during our time. But we were able to identify the militants, to ban their organizations and activities, to capture their leaders and to try and prosecute them. It was under our government that they received the death sentence which was later carried out. We were able to destroy the militant networks by concerted efforts. To tackle this menace we created the elite force called RAB (Rapid Action Battalion) which earned widespread success and fame. RAB was never used against any opposition programme nor for any party or political purpose.

To strengthen our preventive operation against militancy and terrorism in our predominantly Muslim country we also used the services of the Islamic religious teachers and Imams to create and spread awareness against this evil. On the other hand restlessness and confrontation in the society has increased due to the Awami League government’s wrong policy of identifying militancy with the peace loving religious organizations and religion based legitimate political parties. This has adversely affected the drive against militancy.

I want to emphatically state that Bangladesh is an important partner in the international fight against militancy. My government initiated this cooperation. We will not only continue the current level of this cooperation, but will explore ways and means to expand it with other countries and institutions as an active member of the coalition for the war against terrorism. We have to remember that terrorism is a threat to peace, stability, sustained economic development and foreign direct investment. Over and above this, terrorism and militancy endangers national interest and brings disrepute to Islam, the religion of the majority of our population. It is a transnational crime that threatens the quality of life of our own citizen and those of the world at large. We are committed to ensuring that Bangladesh territory will never be used for domestic, regional, international or any other form of terrorism.

In this respect I want to say few more words to my countrymen.

South Asia is home to almost one sixth of the world’s population. We are linked by geography, common rivers, history, shared cultures, language and a sense of identity. None of the countries in this region can move away or remain isolated from each other. That is why if we form the government in future with the support of the people we will reach out to our neighbours and expand upon current relationships as well as explore new ways to establish closer relationships in political, economic security, cultural, and social sectors. I believe that peace, stability, security and regional cooperation is the foundation for promoting and developing an enhanced quality of life for all citizens. It is also the essential element for making the dreams and common aspirations of the people of South Asia a reality.

We cannot deny that problems between neighbouring countries have existed and will exist in the future. This is no different than other regions of the world. I believe firmly that such problems are not so intractable that they cannot be resolved through honest dialogue and constant exchange of views while respecting mutual interests. At the heart of resolving these differences is not simply government to government contact and communications, but rather it also encompasses people to people relationships.

If we can form the government in future, we shall represent the people rather than a party. We shall implement policies that introduces the next generation to a higher standard of living and towards developing policies that result in sustained development in all sectors of society.

Today’s world is a global society. Countries and regions can no longer exist as isolated islands; rather we must be contributing members to the global society. Instability in Bangladesh affects South Asia. Instability in South Asia affects the world. That is why we will adopt such policies that ensure domestic as well as regional peace, stability and security. Our government in the future will work to ensure that Bangladesh and all our neighbours positively contribute to a peaceful and secure global society.

Our country is a great nation with a proud history and even brighter future. One common factor we all share is that regardless of one’s cultural, ethnic or religious affiliation we are all Bangladeshi citizens and entitled to equal protection under the laws and Constitution of Bangladesh.

Of particular concern to us are some of the most vulnerable citizens of Bangladesh, our ethnic and religious minorities. Unfortunately they have not always enjoyed equal protection under our laws and there have been instances when religious minorities have faced persecution including attacks on their houses and places of worship. This must stop. Under our Government all citizens will be guaranteed equal protection and individuals who persecute minorities will face the full weight of the law.

We have called for the establishment of judicial committees to investigate atrocities against minorities and under our government such committees will exist and will vigorously investigate any and all instances of attacks on minorities.

Tolerance and restraint is civility, and for us to achieve our greatest height, we must live in a civil society where differences are not only accepted, but are welcomed and valued. We must have national unity through our diversity.

Our future depends on a Bangladesh where all citizens regardless of ethnic or religious affiliation are guaranteed equal opportunity to realize their dreams and to live in a peaceful and secure environment, free of threats to their personal security.

I have said this many times and am saying this again that we do not consider any citizen or group in Bangladesh as minority. Our undifferentiated identity is that we are all Bangladeshis.

The honourable Prime Minister in her address to the nation has spoken many ills about me, my government, party, family, and my political office. I do not wish to make any counter statement. Despite facts and evidence I will not raise any allegations against the Prime Minister, her family members or relatives. I believe enough is enough. The people of Bangladesh don't want to hear any of this any more. We have to come out of this poor culture. In the light of the expectations and aspirations of the nation, and the demand of the time we have to introduce a new trend in politics. The time has come to change and improve the political culture. Someone has to start it. Today, I stand before you with the call for that change. Of course, there will be political differences between us. We must change the way we debate these differences and insist on civil discourse rather than personal attacks. We must debate the merits of philosophies and positions on critical issues facing Bangladesh. Personal attacks serve no useful purpose and the citizens are the ultimate losers because the business of governance takes a back seat and only results in political stalemate and inaction.

I am aware that just doing lip service will not be enough. People of Bangladesh have heard the promise of change in the past as well. That is why today I want to initiate that change by saying something very emphatically. I announce in unequivocal terms that I forgive those who in the past have unfairly treated me and my family and have made personal attacks and continue to do so. We shall not take any vengeful steps against them even if we form the government in future. I assure you that I will look ahead focus on the business of providing a brighter and more secure future for Bangladesh. I do not have time and will not spend time focusing on the past and on retaliation. I hope we can all work together to build a prosperous, peaceful and secure homeland for the future generation. I welcome the ideas and the participation of all those who have in the past been against me.

No one political party has a monopoly on good ideas. For Bangladesh to reach its true potential and for our citizens to prosper, we need and must have the active participation and benefit of ideas from all political, ethnic and religious segments of society. Our government will be a representative government of all Bangladeshi citizens. Our government will be a government of talent and merit, a government of national unity. I am giving an open invitation to those who can contribute to society, to those that can bring good repute for the country, to those who are honest and capable, to those who can develop plans and implement them and to those who can provide leadership, to join and work with our government of unity irrespective of ethnicity, political or religious beliefs.

To err is human and I have no hesitation to admit that we have made mistakes in the past. At the same breath I would like to say that we have learnt from those mistakes. We are better prepared to take Bangladesh towards a brighter, more stable, and prosperous future.

I agree with the adage – “if you fail to learn from history, history will repeat itself”. We will therefore not repeat the mistakes of the past.

We all know that the whole country now is eagerly awaiting a change. To ensure the continuity of the democratic process and for a peaceful transfer of power there is no alternative to a credible, free, fair, competitive election participated by all parties. That is why we had raised the demand for a neutral, non-party, poll-time government. With the support of all opposition parties and the people this has coalesced into a national demand. Unfortunately, however, whatever the honourable Prime Minister has said in her address to the nation is not aligned to the hopes and aspirations of the people. Because it will not ensure a credible, free, fair national election participated by all parties.

The Constitution she is referring to has been amended by her government them at will and has led to the present crisis. She has blocked the road to credible elections and created the way to deprive the voting rights of the people. She has not clarified who will head the all party election time government proposed by her. This has resulted in growing concern among the people that she is inviting the opposition to participate in an uneven competition by keeping power in her own hands, keeping the MP's in place and keeping the administration in her tight grip. This is not acceptable to the people. She has left no room for any discussion on the popular demand for an election time non-party neutral government and has made a proposal convenient only to herself.

The only advice she has sought from the opposition parties is a date for the elections. The nation is frustrated by her statement. I still feel that the matter can be resolved through discussions. The sooner this is held the better. That is why, in line with the hopes and expectations of the people, I would now like to place on behalf of the BNP and 18 Party Alliance a specific proposal for consideration by the Prime Minister.

In 1996 and 2001 under the non-party and neutral Caretaker Governments two credible elections were held which were participated by all parties. The Advisers of those Caretaker Governments were praised by all for their neutrality. The Awami League won one of those elections while BNP the other. I am proposing that from those 20 Advisers the ruling party can propose five names and the opposition another five. They will be the Advisers in the forthcoming election time government. I propose that on the basis of a consensus between the government and the opposition parties a respected citizen of the country can be chosen to be the Chief Advisor of the interim government.

I hope the honourable Prime Minister will accept my proposal in the interest of peace, stability and democracy. I hope she will take effective steps to hold discussions between the two parties quickly on this matter.

I am making a fervent appeal to the honourable Prime Minister to take the initiative to form this government through the constitutional process. I would like to add that before the current Parliament is dissolved and if is felt necessary the interim government can be elected in the same way the President, the Speaker and the women MPs are elected.

I believe this nation which is capable handling disasters will soon be able to be free from the political crisis. I have offered this proposal with that end in view. We do not want confrontation. We want compromise. Not autocracy but democracy. We want to leave behind the culture of violence, of a killing frenzy using oars, bamboos and machetes, burning passengers in buses by spraying gunpowder, stripping office goers during hartal and publicly humiliating them. The people of Bangladesh are anxiously looking forward to be free from the uncertainty and for a change. Come, let us all respond positively to that expectation.

War crimes tribunal: Another week, another contempt application

Another week, another contempt application.

If the prosecutors – and in particular the prosecutor Tureen Afroz, who seems to be spearheading these efforts – have their way, there will soon be more contempt cases than actual prosecutions in Tribunal 1.

This Tribunal is currently dealing with three cases: The Economist; Human Rights Watch and now a new one concerning 8 people – five of whom are officials of the TV station Channel 24, and three others, the host of a programme (Mahmudah Rahman Manna) and two guests.

The most recent application relates to a TV program broadcast on 18 September on the show Muktobaak, and comments made about the trial of Salauddin Quader Chowdhury, whose judgement is actually being given today.

And it is the comments of two guests about which the prosecutors are concerned.

About these comments, the prosecution claimed:

‘The statement made in the said talk show is biased, baseless, utterly false and fabricated, ill motivated and is not made in good faith.

It goes onto say:

‘Such statement was made only to scadalise this Hon’ble tribunal and its process (by exercising its independent judicial functions and also fair trial) and to undermine the confidence of the people in the integrity of this Hon’ble tribunal and its process.’

It will be for the tribunal to decide whether contempt has been committed here. My purpose here is simply to consider whether the statements are ‘baseless, utterly false and fabricated’.

In its order in response to the application, it was reported that the tribunal stated that the men made ‘false and fabricated statements on subjudice matter … providing ‘reasonable grounds to draw up contempt proceedings against the eight respondents.’ It is not clear from the reports of the order pf the court (I have not seen the full written order) what it considered ‘false and fabricated’.

(I have already in my sister blog. which focuses entirely on the war crimes trials, written about the prosecution’s difficult relationship with ‘facts’ and the ‘truth’ in the context of its application concerning an application by Human Rights Watch)

On this occasion, the comments in question were made by the two guests: Dr Zafarullah Chowdhury, a particularly respected member of the country’s civil society, and founder of the Gonoshasto Kendra Trust, and Mahfuz Ullah, Secretary General of the Centre for Sustainable Development.

In the prosecution’s application, three excerpts of the programme are highlighted – the first two are said by Zafarullah, and the third by Ullah. The English translation of these extracts, set out in the application itself, is as follows:

‘Today Saluauddin Quader Chowdhury, we have known forever, I believed that as well, he was not here that is true, whatever he produced four defence witnesses, one of them was our Salman, another was a sitting justice. He [Salauddin Quader Chowdhury] relied on the testimony of a sitting judge of the Honorable High Court and he [the judge]was willing to testify, he submitted his application, he sought the permission to our Mojammel Hossain [Chief Justice] and permission was not granted, and a former high commissioner testified and he was heard. What will be the result of this? The doubt will remain within the people. Law says that ten accused persons be released, lest an innocent gets punished

And Zafarullah continues

‘I hate Salauddin Quader Chowdhury with all my heart. This man is claiming that he was not here in 1971. He wanted one Justice Hosnain as his defence witness. Why this justice was not given permission to appear as a defence witness. If he is not allowed whether that will not hurt the natural justice?

And Ullah states:

And the question that is raised by Zafarullah Chowdhury is that he [Salauddin Quader Chowdhury] submitted the names of four defence witnesses which were allowed in other cases, but not allowed in this case. That is why he [Dr Zafarullah Chowdhury] is saying that these questions are being repeatedly raised.

Now lets talk about what is factually true and what is not.

Zafarullah's two excerpts basically state the following: Salauddin Quader Chowdhury claimed that he was not in the country at the time. He wanted a judge, Justice Hosnain to testify to support this claim. This particular judge was wiling to testify. The judge asked the permission of the chief justice to so do. Permission was not granted.

The prosecution claim that this is ‘baseless, utterly false and fabricated.’

However, this set of facts seems to be entirely correct.

On 22 July 2013, Justice Shamim Husnain did write a letter to the chief justice asking whether he would be permitted to testify to the tribunal.

The letter, a copy of which is in my possession, stated:

“I have learned that my name has been submitted as a defence witness by Salauddin Quader Chowdhury, an accused in the International Crimes Tribunal.

I presume my name as a defence witness was considered by the accused on the basis that he was a classmate of mine at Punjab University at Lahore. It is true that Salauddin Quader Chowdhury was at the Punjab University Campus between the first week of May 1971 till August of the same year

I am told by my brother Judges that a sitting judge of the Hon’ble court division , I am debarred from appearing as a witness in any court.

As I am torn between my official obligation/conduct on the one hand and my conscience on the other, I seek to confer with our lordship in respect of the ‘Bar”, if any, and particularly having regard to the fact that a consultation with you and your approbation is condition precedent for me to respond in this matter.’

We also know that Hosnain did not depose at the tribunal.

An article in New Age by the tribunal correspondent on 25 July confirms that he did not attend and sets out the circumstances

"Later, defence lawyer Fakhrul sought an adjournment in the hearing to produce his fifth witness, Justice Shamim Hasnain.


Prosecutor Malum vehemently opposed the plea and prayed for closing defence witness examination.
 

He pointed out that the defence missed several chances to produce its witnesses.


He called it a trick of Salauddin’s lawyers to delay the trial.


The tribunal, in its order, said that it had observed that the fifth defence witness Justice Shamim Hasnain proposed by the defence made no correspondence with the tribunal until Wednesday.


The tribunal in its order said, since the defence failed to produce its witnesses on two more chances it was given there was no ground to allow its plea to examine its witness anymore.
The defence witness examination is hereby closed, said the order."

It is of course possible that the prosecutors do not know about this letter.

But perhaps before claiming someone has stated something that is ‘baseless, utterly false and fabricated’, they should just check?

About the comment made by Ullah. Well, there is some confusion here I think. Salauddin Quader Chowdhury's lawyers were only allowed five witnesses. In the end they could bring four, before the tribunal closed the defence argument. Ullah's comments therefore are slightly incorrect.

Politics and the Molla execution

Putting to one side, for one moment, the appropriateness or otherwise of the decision made by the appellate division to impose a death sentence on Quader Molla (also see this), it is interesting to consider the political context in which the government now has to decide when or if to carry out the execution.

There are two opinion polls this year that provide some information about the mood of the country in relation to the trials and demands for execution.

The first was undertaken by Org-Quest Research Limited who were commissioned by the country's number one Bengali language newspaper, Prothom Alo. It was never published - apparently because it was considered too sensitive.

3000 people were interviewed by phone between 8-15 Feb 2013 on issues relating to the conviction and sentence of imprisonment of the Jamaat-e-Islami leader Quader Molla for war crimes committed during the 1971 war. The questioning took place in the days immediately after the verdict and when the Shahbag movement - which was vehemently seeking the death penalty - was it its height. The estimated margin of error in this poll was said to be +/- 1.7 percent.

Amongst respondents who knew about the ruling (86% of the total) were asked whether they were satisfied with the ruling 59% said that they were dissatisfied and 40 percent said they were satisfied. 1 percent refused to answer.

When the unsatisfied respondents were asked what should have been the fair verdict, the 43% favored the death penalty, 9% expected acquittal and 6% thought anything less than life imprisonment would have been the fair verdict.

In summary, this means that 43% supported the demand that Molla be given the death penalty and 55% were against it, (supporting either life imprisonment, a shorter level of imprisonment or acquittal). 2% had refused to answer.

When the results were considered in terms of whether they lives - 63% of urban residents compared with 37 percent of those living in rural areas supported the sentence of hanging.

This would suggest that there a death penalty decision is not widely popular in Bangladesh, though a significant minority do support it

The second opinion poll was undertaken by Nielsen/Democracy International in April 2013 - subsequent not only to Molla's verdict and the pro-hanging Shahbag protests but also the ICT ruling imposing a death penalty against Sayedee.

This poll involved the face to face interviewing of 2510 randomly selected people throughout Bangladesh, and had margin of error of +/- 2%.

Of those who knew about the tribunal (92%) 86% wanted the trials to proceed.

When those who knew about the tribunals were asked about the fairness of the process, 63% thought that the trials were unfair or very unfair and 31% though they were fair.

Those who thought that the trials were not fair divided into 41% who stated that were simply 'unfair' and 22% who that the trials were ‘very’ unfair.

The poll also found that only 25% of people thought that BNP supported 'war criminals'

In relation to Shahbag, the poll found that 66 per cent of those questioned knew about the Shahbagh protests and out of this number, 69 per cent thought that the ‘reason’ why the protesters were at Shahbagh was to ‘demand justice/capital punishment.’

However, when those voters who knew about the protests were asked about the extent to which ‘most of your friends and family’ supported or were against the movement, the poll found that only 31 per cent supported/highly supported it (of which 13 per cent ‘highly’ supported it) and that 51 per cent thought that their friends and family were against/highly against it (21 per cent being ‘highly’ against).

This second poll therefore suggests that there is a level of deep ambivalence in Bangladesh towards the war crimes trials; whilst the support the idea of trials, most people see the actual proceedings as unfair - though the polls do not examine exactly what people mean by 'unfair (it could mean unfair to the prosecutors, not just unfair to the accused!). Whilst the majority opinion against Shahbag might not only be a vote against Shahbag's demand for the death penalty, it is likely that it does reflect at least to some extent opposition to the death penalty since that was the protestors main demand.

So where does that leave us with the issue of the execution of Molla. 

Taking these polls into account, my view is that Molla's execution will not be a big vote winner for the AL, and amongst certain sections of society in Bangladesh could well turn people off the party (though these people are probably not sympathetic to the party already)

If the government does try to execute Molla in haste, for example without providing a right to review the decision, this could certainly increase the perception of unfairness, that might filter through to opposition to the governing party.

At the same time, Molla's execution will be popular amongst the AL party's base, and a failure to carry out the execution (unless of course something happened clearly beyond the party's control of course) would create significant problems for the party, with the party leadership coming under significant criticism from within.

Probably, looking at the issue in totally political terms, for the Awami League, failure to execute Molla would probably do them more harm than good.

The opposition BNP is being extremely quiet about the tribunals at present - it has not criticised the death penalty as such, but has focused on urging the government to allow the defence to undertake a review by the appellate division. It seems there is little political mileage in the BNP taking up the issue one way or the other.

More Bangladesh polls results: religion, NGOs, hartals, corruption ...

Last week New Age newspapers published results of a series of opinion polls undertaken by AC Nielsen/Democracy International focusing on the level of political support held by the different political parties, and voters’ views on an election caretaker government, the war crimes trials and the Shahbagh movement. These can all be seen here

However, in the polls undertaken since June 2012 many other questions were asked of voters and below are findings which are likely to be of additional interest – though it should be remembered that that some answers were given over a year ago, and opinions may well have changed.

This is the first time these results - from polls in June 2012, Jan 2013, Mar 2013 and July 2013 - have been published.

All the polls involved face-to-face interviews with between 2,400 to 2,500 randomly selected people throughout Bangladesh. Democracy International says that it is confident that ‘statistically, the views of those surveyed accurately represent the opinions of all Bangladeshi voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2 per cent.’

Particularly interesting results:
- lack of confidence in NGOs;
- significance of religion;
- Awami League government does well in comparison with last Bangladesh Nationalist Party government in most policy areas;
- 'Corruption' is seen as biggest weakness of both main parties;
- 'history' of party, important to why people vote for AL;
- retirement of AL and BNP's 'founding families' from politics would weaken parties;
- 'hartals' very unpopular;
- control of prices seen as most important priority for new government;
- Overwhelming number of people want dialogue between main political parties.

June 2012 poll 

1. Confidence in institutions: When voters were asked to state whether they had confidence in different institutions, the three in which voters had the least confidence were the ‘police’ (50 percent had no confidence), the ‘political parties’ (43 percent) and NGOs (41 percent). The institution in which voters had the most confidence was ‘the military’ with only 5 percent saying that they had no confidence in it.

2. Religion: The response to two questions indicated the significance of religion in Bangladesh politics. A small majority of people (53 to 47 percent) either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposition that ‘religion and politics are two different things’ and 59 percent agreed/strongly agreed that it would be a good thing ‘if all political parties in Bangladesh is based on religion.’

3. BNP/AL policy comparison: Voters were asked to compare the current Awami league government with that of the 2001-6 Bangladesh Nationalist Party government in a number of areas. In ‘education and health care’, 82 percent thought that the current AL government was either successful or very successful, compared to 54 percent who thought the same of the previous BNP government; in ‘reducing poverty’, 36 percent thought the AL had been successful/very successful compared to 32 percent for the BNP period; and both parties get the same ratings, 40 percent, in relation to dealing with law and order. Only in relation to the price of goods does the BNP have a better rating than the AL (41 percent thinking that the BNP had been successful/very successful compared to 30 percent for the AL government). The caretaker government only rated well on the issue of law and order, where 71 percent thought it was successful.

4. Party shortcomings: When voters were asked what was the shortcomings/weakness of the AL and the BNP, the issue that was mentioned the most for both parties was ‘corruption’ - with the same percentage of voters, 35 percent mentioning it as a shortcoming for each party.

5. Why support parties: When asked what were the reasons ‘why some people like or support’ the Al, 46 percent of voters stated it was the party’s ‘leaders’ and 37 percent mentioned it was the party’s ‘history’ - higher levels than the percentage of voters who gave the same reasons about the BNP (31 percent and 15 percent, respectively.)

6. Party/candidate: Just over half of the voters questioned, 52 percent, said that when they vote, they decide solely on the basis of ‘the qualities of an individual candidate’. 18 percent said that they only considered the political party, and 26 percent stating that they consider ‘both’.

7. Founding families: The same percentage of voters, 55 percent and 6 percent respectively thought that both the BNP and AL would be ‘much weakened’ or would ‘disappear’ if ‘their founding families were to retire from politics. Many more people however thought that the Jatiya party would be affected if General Ershad and his family retired from politics with as many as 26 percent of voters thinking that the party would disappear ‘entirely’ (over and above the 52 percent who thought that the party would be weakened by their retirement).

January 2013 poll
8. Hartals: Voters were very hostile to both ‘hartals’ and ‘barricades’ organized by political parties – with over 90 percent viewing them as ‘bad.’ 65 percent even thought ‘criticising opponents in the media’ was ‘bad’. The kinds of political activities that were popular were rallies, public gatherings, TV debate and use of posters.

9. New election Priority: The issue that by far the most number of voters stated should be ‘given priority’ by the next elected government was ‘control of prices’ with 94 percent of voters thinking it a priority. In a question (where voters were allowed to provide more than one answer) 58 percent also thought that ‘improving law and order’, and 40 percent ‘dealing with corruption’ and ‘increasing jobs’, should be priorities.

March 2013
10. Media: Television is by far the most important medium through which people receive their news. When voters were asked ‘which medium do you receive the most reliable news’, 75 percent said ‘television’, with only 6 percent stating ‘newspapers’. 25 percent said ‘words of mouth’ with ero no-one stating the ‘internet’.

11. When asked which TV stations they watched, 37 percent said they watched BTV, 13 percent ATN Bangla, 11 percent Channel One, 7 percent Somoy TV and NTV, and 4 percent said ETV and ATN news.

12. In terms of those people who did read newspapers, 32 percent stated they read Prothom Ali, 27 percent Bangladesh Protidin, 15/16 percent said Amar Desh, Jugantor and Ittefaq, 8-10 percent Jonokhonto, Noyo Niganto, Kaler Khonto and Samakol.

July 2013
13. Dialogue: When voters were asked, ‘Do you believe that the government and opposition parties should get involved in a constructive dialogue soon,’ 93 percent agreed. And when additionally asked whether or not the ‘international community can facilitate dialogue’, 43 percent agreed and 33 percent disagreed.

(This work of DI is part of the Democratic Participation and Reform programme, which is funded by the American and British aid bodies, USAID and UKAID)

Nielsen/Democracy International Polls on Bangladesh

Last week on September 11 2013, New Age published five articles on a series of AC Nielsen/Democracy International opinion polls undertaken in Bangladesh in the past year. It was the first time that results of the polls had been published

For those interested in Bangladesh and wanting to get a better understanding of what people's view in the country actually are on a variety of different issues the polls are absolutely fascinating.

Below are the articles, with links to the original pieces in New Age

1. Significant swing towards BNP
AL hopes lie with ‘undecided voters’

A series of international standard opinion polls conducted over the past year show a significant swing of popular support towards the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, putting the current opposition party in a strong position to win the next national elections due to take place before 24 January 2014, New Age can reveal.
The most recent poll conducted in July 2013 put BNP’s support at 43 points, 11 percentage points ahead of the Awami League and more than double the results of a November 2012 survey which at that time found the BNP’s support to be at only 20 per cent.
Although the headline result of the July 2013 poll is good news for the BNP, the Awami League still has much to play for as the survey found that 19 per cent of all voters — one fifth of the total electorate — had still not made up their mind.
The July 2013 poll does not appear to be a freak result as two opinion polls carried out between the two polls found the opposition party gradually gaining ground over the Awami League.
A January 2013 poll showed the BNP had increased its support to 32 percent and a poll in April found that the percentage of people willing to vote for the BNP had increased to 38.
Support for the Awami League had in the same period flat-lined — remaining unchanged in the January and April 2013 polls, and only rising slightly to 32 per cent in the most recent poll in July.
The question asked of all respondents was: ‘If the election is held today, which party would you think you are likely to vote for?’
The polls — which were shared with New Age — were conducted by the pollster AC Nielsen as part of the Democratic Participation and Reform programme, which is funded by the American and British aid bodies, USAID and UKAID, and implemented by the international non-governmental organisation Democracy International.
Whilst this is the first time that the results of the polls have been made public, they were shared with the four main political parties after the completion of each survey.
The polls, which involved face-to-face interviews with between 2,400 to 2,500 randomly selected people throughout Bangladesh, also asked their views on other issues of the day including the caretaker government, the war crimes trials and the Shahbagh protests (see adjoining articles).
Democracy International says that it uses the most modern statistical methods of polling employed elsewhere in the world and is confident that ‘statistically, the views of those surveyed accurately represent the opinions of all Bangladeshi voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2 per cent.’
The poll results also show that whilst the BNP is currently more popular in all age categories, it has particular support amongst first-time voters, now aged 22 or under.
The preference of first-time voters is particularly significant as they are likely to account for about 15 per cent of the entire electorate at the next elections.
The July 2013 poll found that 46 per cent of the 18–22 age category supported the BNP whilst only 29 per cent supported the Awami League.
In 2006, at the time when the BNP was last in office, this cohort of voters was aged between 11 and 15 years, with little knowledge of the current opposition party’s period in office.
The BNP’s increased popular support is though not simply the result of its appeal to young voters; it is also due to former AL voters turning to the BNP.
All four polls between November 2012 and July 2013 show that almost a half of those who had voted for the Awami League in the 2008 election said that they would no longer vote for the party - with as many as 24 per cent of 2008 AL supporters stating in the July 2013 poll that they had changed their allegiance to the BNP.
In contrast, 90 per cent of those who voted for the BNP at the last election stated in July 2013 that they continued to support the party. In November 2012, this figure was only 70 per cent.
A particularly significant finding of the polls is how well the BNP is doing in those constituencies which historically, looking at the four elections results since 1991, the Awami League has won by healthy margins.
In the 41 constituencies which, on an average over the past four elections the Awami League candidate won by a margin of votes of between 7 and 14 percentage points (which Democracy International terms ‘AL-leaning’ seats) the July 2013 poll found that the BNP was, on an average, winning by a margin of 17 per cent (51 per cent the BNP to 34 per cent the Awami League).
And in the 72 constituencies which historically over the post-1991 elections, the AL candidate has won on an average by a margin of more than 14 percentage points — the ‘strong AL seats’ — the BNP, according to the July 2013 poll, was at level pegging with the Awami League (40 per cent the BNP to 38 per cent the Awami League).
The July 2013 poll also found that whilst the Awami League continues to have more support in rural (34 per cent) compared to urban areas (25 per cent), the BNP has greater support than the Awami League in both parts of the country, with support for the opposition party at 42 and 44 per cent in both rural and urban Bangladesh respectively.
The polls provide no clear reasons for the swing to the BNP between November 2012 and July 2013 although the nine months period included four war crimes trials convictions, the ensuring political violence, the Shahbagh protests, allegations against ‘bloggers,’ the two Hefazet rallies in Dhaka, and fuel price increases, some or all which may have been factors.
The last poll was undertaken after the four city corporation elections, held in June 2013.
Despite the swing to the BNP, a poll in January 2013, showed that the prime minister continues to have wide popular support — with 52 per cent of people saying that they ‘liked’ her. This was 2 percentage points less than the 54 per cent who ‘liked’ the opposition leader Khaleda Zia. The poll also found that 30 per cent of people did not like either leader.
Democracy International emphasised to New Age that the ‘views expressed in these surveys are those of the respondents who were selected using a statistical sampling method and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organisation or its donors, USAID/UKAID.’ 

2. Voter’s economic perception provides hope for AL

Although the July 2013 headline poll results point to a significant swing towards the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, the electorate’s positive views of their own financial well-being provide the Awami League with reasons to hope that the popular mood in the country, particularly amongst the undecided voters, could turn back towards the party before elections.
When asked in July 2013, ‘Has the Bangladesh economy improved, worsened, or stayed the same under the current government?’ 46 per cent of the respondents were of the view that the economy had ‘improved’ and only 38 per cent stated that the ‘economy had ‘worsened.’ Sixteen per cent stated that they thought that the economy had stayed the same.
And when the voters were specifically asked whether they were better or worse off ‘than five years ago,’ the results were practically the same; 48 per cent said that they were ‘better off,’ 36 per cent said that they were ‘worse off’ with 16 percent stating that nothing had changed.

The results could be significant for the forthcoming elections as the perception of voters’ economic well-being before elections is in many countries considered a good indicator of whether they will vote for the incumbent party or for a change — with those who consider themselves to have economically improved more likely to vote for the incumbent party.
With much hanging on how the undecided voters (which the poll showed accounted for 19 per cent of the total electorate) finally decide for which party they will vote, it is notable that 40 per cent of the undecided voters stated that they were ‘better-off’ compared with only 32 per cent who stated that they were ‘worse-off.’
The results of one other question, which is also thought to be a good proxy for how people will vote in an election, provided mixed fortunes for the governing party.
In April 2013, when voters were asked the question, ‘Overall, do you think things in Bangladesh are headed in the right direction, or are they headed in the wrong direction?’ the results were bad news for the Awami League.
Eighty-four per cent stated that they were headed in the wrong direction with only 14 per cent stating otherwise.
However, when asked in July 2013 the same question, the figures had significantly changed.
The number of those who thought that the country was headed in the wrong direction had reduced to 58 per cent with the number of those feeling that the country was moving in the right direction rising to 37 per cent — a significant uptick for the Awami League. 

 

The policy area where the government is consistently considered by voters to have most succeeded is in the area of education.
When voters in July 2013 were asked what were the ‘three main achievements of the current government,’ more than a half of all the respondents (52 per cent) mentioned ‘improvements in the educational sector.’
The decision by the government to provide free textbooks to all primary and secondary school students, the nationalisation of more than 27,000 primary schools, and the appointment of tens of thousands of new teachers may well have been behind the positive views of voters.
In addition, a fifth of the voters (21 per cent) mentioned improvements in the buildings of communication infrastructure (roads, flyovers, etc) and 13 per cent mentioned agriculture as amongst the government’s achievements.
Other policy decisions considered positively were ‘women’s empowerment’, the ‘health sector’ and war crimes trials — each mentioned by 11 per cent of voters. ‘Increasing production of electricity’ and ‘digital Bangladesh’ was mentioned by 10 per cent of voters.
Nineteen per cent of those questioned, however, stated that the government ‘has had no success.’
The poll, involving face-to-face interviews with 2,500 randomly selected people throughout Bangladesh, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percent, was conducted by the pollster AC Nielsen as part of the Democratic Participation and Reform programme, which is funded by the American and British aid bodies, USAID and UKAID, and implemented by the international non-governmental organisation Democracy International.

3. Main party allies lose support  

The level of voter support for the principal allies of the both of Bangladesh’s main political parties has dropped by more than a half since the 2008 national elections, with Jamaat-e-Islami’s support as low as 1 per cent and the Jatiya Party 3 per cent, according to a national opinion poll conducted in July 2013.

In 2008, Jamaat, an ally of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, had received 4 per cent of the national vote, which at that time was the lowest level of support the party had received in the four elections since 1990, with the Jatiya Party, an ally of the Awami League, receiving about 8 per cent in the last elections.
As the levels of support for these two parties are in the low percentages, it is possible that the small decline in support found in these polls are within the margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points and may not be that meaningful.
The July 2013 poll found that Jamaat only retained the support of 57 per cent of voters who said that they had previously supported the party in 2008, with nearly a third of these 2008 Jamaat supporters (29 per cent) stating that they would now vote for the BNP.
In a poll nine months earlier in November 2012, the vast majority of 2008 Jamaat supporters, 89 per cent, had continued to support the party.
The new decline in Jamaat’s support appears to have particularly occurred in the last three months as polls in January and April 2013 showed that the party’s support was holding then at 3 per cent.
The July 2013 poll suggests that the decline in the Jatiya party’s support is due to its loss of support to both the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party.
Seven per cent of those who had voted for the Jatiya party in the 2008 elections said in July that they would vote for the Awami League and 10 per cent said that they would now support the BNP.
The polls, involving face-to-face interviews with between 2400 and 2,500 randomly selected people throughout Bangladesh, was conducted by the pollster AC Nielson as part of the Democratic Participation and Reform programme, which is funded by the US and UK government aid bodies, USAID and UKAID, and implemented by the international non-governmental organisation Democracy International.

4. Popular support for caretaker govt
A majority of voters, including most Awami League supporters, are against the decision of the government to remove the caretaker government system, according to an international standard election poll that was undertaken in April 2013.
A subsequent poll taken three months later, however, showed a greater willingness on part of the electorate to accept elections under a political government although a clear majority still disapproved.
Constitutional provision for a three-month election-time caretaker government, first introduced in 1996, was removed by the present government in 2011.
Although the BNP has demanded its reintroduction for the forthcoming elections due to take place before 24 January 2014, the prime minister has rejected elections under any government other than the current one.
In the April 2013 poll, 81 per cent of voters, including 62 per cent of the Awami League supporters, said that they were ‘against’ the ‘removal of the caretaker government system,’ with only 15 per cent being in favour of the constitutional change.
When those voters who supported the caretaker system were asked ‘what are the positives of the caretaker government?’ 67 per cent stated that it would ensure ‘neutral and unbiased conduct of elections,’ 42 per cent said that it would lead to the ‘eradication of corruption,’ and 22 per cent that it would ‘care about everyone not just their party.’
When asked what were the negatives of ‘conducting elections under the current government?’ 49 per cent mentioned that it would result in a ‘biased election,’ 38 per cent that it would result in the ‘opposition not participating,’ and 30 per cent that the ‘vote wont be counted fairly.’
Respondents were allowed to provide multiple answers to these questions.
Hostility to the removal of the caretaker system, however, appeared less when voters in the same poll were asked a slightly different question: ‘Do you approve or disapprove of a national parliamentary election taking place under the current government?’ In answer to that question, only 68 per cent disapproved, and 32 per cent approved.
A poll conducted three months later in July 2013 showed that the level of support for political government-held elections had increased further to 41 per cent although a majority, 52 per cent, continued to disapprove.
The poll although continued to show that the strength of feeling against a political government held elections was much greater, with the percentage of those who ‘strongly disapproved’ holding elections under a political government over three times higher than those who ‘strongly approved’ (30 to 9 per cent).
It appears that one reason for the increased comfort with the idea of holding elections under a political government was the victory of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party in the four city corporation elections held in June, one month before the poll was undertaken.
Seventy-seven per cent of those asked about whether these elections helped ‘increase voter’s confidence in elections under the current government?’ thought that they had.
The July 2013 poll also asked voters questions about how personally safe they ‘felt to vote’ under a political government (in comparison with elections under a caretaker government) and found that 53 per cent stated they would either feel ‘not safe’ or ‘less safe’ against a total of 47 per cent who said that they would feel either ‘safe’ or ‘safer’ to vote.
And whilst a majority of voters (51 per cent) felt that their vote would ‘not be stolen,’ 49 per cent felt that this would happen, with 17 per cent feeling ‘strongly’ that their vote would not count.
Despite the concerns held by a majority of people concerning the holding of elections under a political government, the July 2013 polls found that at the same time most people (52 per cent) had faith in the capacity of the Election Commission in ‘holding free and fair elections under the current government.’
Only 32 per cent felt that the Election Commission was ‘not capable,’ with 13 per cent stating that they did not know.
In the earlier April 2013 poll, however, the results suggested that the electorate had more confidence in the Election Commission if it was operating under a caretaker government.
In that poll only 28 per cent stated that ‘the Bangladesh Election Commission will do its job neutrally under the current government,’ with 64 per cent agreeing with the same proposition if it was operating under a ‘non-partisan government system.’
The polls which involved face-to-face interviews with between 2,400 to 2,500 randomly selected people throughout Bangladesh, were amongst a series conducted since the beginning of 2012 by the pollster AC Nielsen as part of the Democratic Participation and Reform programme, which is funded by the American and British aid bodies, USAID and UKAID, and implemented by the international non-governmental organisation Democracy International.

5. Majority support war crimes trials but oppose Shahbagh protests
Most voters want the 1971 war crimes trials ‘to proceed’ even though a majority also consider the trials to be ‘unfair’ or ‘very unfair,’ according to an opinion poll conducted in April 2013.
The poll, which was amongst a series of surveys conducted by the pollster AC Nielson also found that nearly twice as many people were against, rather than in favour, of the Shahbagh movement.
When 2510 randomly selected people throughout Bangladesh were asked in April whether they knew about the war crimes trials, 92 percent said that they did with 86 per cent of these voters stating that they personally wanted the trials to proceed, with only 12 per cent against.*
However, when asked about the fairness of the process, 63 per cent (of those that knew about the trials) thought that the trials were unfair or very unfair (with 41 percent stating that they were unfair and 22 per cent stating that the trials were ‘very’ unfair) and only 31 per cent considered that the trials were fair or 'very' fair (with 22 percent stating that they were fair and 9 per cent thinking that they were ‘very’ fair).Those voters who thought that the trials were ‘unfair/very unfair’ included supporters of all the main parties: 84 per cent of the BNP and Jamaat supporters, 80 per cent of Jatiya party voters, and even 32 per cent of Awami Leaguers.
Voters were not asked about the reason for their views on the fairness of the tribunal but the process was subject in November and December 2012 to particular controversy with the publication of Skype conversations and e-mails involving the former chairman of one of the tribunals and allegations about the state abduction of a defence witness.
Voters were also asked about their view on the relationship between the BNP and the war crimes trials.
Fifty-four per cent agreed with the statement that the BNP ‘was not supporting war criminals, they are only demanding fair trials’ whilst 25 per cent agreed with the statement that the BNP ‘secretly support war criminals.’ Twenty-one per cent did not know which statement was correct.
This result would suggest that the attempt by Awami League politicians to taint the BNP through alleging its support for ‘war criminals’ has only been partially successful.
Questions were also asked about the Shahbagh protests which were triggered in February 2013 by the decision of the International Crimes Tribunal to sentence Abdul Quader Mollah, following his conviction for crimes against humanity during the 1971 independence war, to life imprisonment, rather than to a death sentence.
The poll found that 66 per cent of those questioned knew about the Shahbagh protests and out of this number, 69 per cent thought that the ‘reason’ why the protesters were at Shahbagh were to ‘demand justice/capital punishment,’ with only 19 per cent thinking that the object was ‘anti-Islamist.’
However, when those voters who knew about the protests were asked about the extent to which ‘most of your friends and family’ supported or were against the movement, the poll found that only 31 per cent supported/highly supported it (of which 13 per cent ‘highly’ supported it) and that 51 per cent thought that their friends and family were against/highly against it (21 per cent being ‘highly’ against).
The poll found that most Awami League supporters (60 per cent) supported the Shahbagh protests, with most BNP supporters (71 per cent) opposing them.
The poll also sought views on the nature of the protest. When asked, ‘Do you think the movement was a pure movement by the youth or is it a movement created by a certain party?’ the majority of voters, 51 per cent, stated that it was ‘orchestrated,’ with other 25 per cent believing it to be a ‘pure movement.’ Fifteen per cent of voters, however, thought that it started off as a pure movement and was ‘later supported by a political party.’
Most voters in the poll (61 per cent) did not think that the Shahbagh movement would have impact on the next general elections although 24 per cent considered that it would help the Awami League and 7 per cent that it would assist the BNP.
The April 2013 opinion poll is part of the Democratic Participation and Reform programme, which is funded by the US and UK government aid bodies, USAID and UKAID and implemented by the international non-governmental organisation Democracy International.

* Correction: This and the following paragraph have been amended to clarify that the questions about the level of support for proceedings and about the fairness of the trial process, were asked of those respondents who 'knew' about the war crimes trial, which was 92 percent of the total respondents.