Abedin Quader

Both The Elected Cabinets Of Khlaeda And Hasina Failed To Announce The Bugetary Details Of The Defence Forces In The Parliamen

During 1996-2001, Sheikh Hasina's cabinet tried to pull the military personnel out of the political life of the country dismantling some of the agencies the retired officers had managed to occupy in Zia's, Ershad's and Khaleda's government. They drastically slashed the barracks and military authority on civil life signing a truce with the tribal insurgents, though they also made some concessions to the military officers, raising their salaries and providing funds for the modernization and reequipment of the armed forces. Hasina, during her rule, tried to completely withdraw them from politics reorienting the role of armed forces from an emphasis on internal defense to an emphasis on external defense. But the most regrettable thing is that both the elected cabinets of Khlaeda and Hasina failed to announce the bugetary details of the defence forces in the parliament to get it ratified by the House, they just voiced the total amount allocated for the Defence Ministry. It gave a vague impression to the people how the military expenditure was managed. Defence budget was never debated on in the national parliament, looks like that there was some hidden pressure from some quarters, and it's a shame on the elected representatives of the country.

One cannot neglect the negative consequences of such lasting military power under the democratic regime. For a great deal of time military activities remained veiled from civilian control, which guaranteed them a level of autonomy that consistently damaged the legitimacy of the civilian rule of law. It is as if the Bangladesh society had accepted the co-existance of a democratic rule of law along with an "island of exceptionalism" ruled by those and for 15 years had run a considerably violent regime. And despite the fact that Sheikh Hasina's government started to redesign the role of military forces, increasing problems of social violence made politicians and various sections of the population claim for their presence in the streets for the maintenance of public order. This helps in explaining why, as in present-day Bangladesh, there is an increasing number of military officers heading administrative positions in governmental public safety agencies, such as NSI, civil service, sector corporations, the Military Office of the Presidency of the Republic, among others. Moreover, "it is considered natural for the armed forces to intervene in the interest of the maintenance of law and order without accounting for its actions to the state." As an example, it may be mentioned that the present government brought the BDR onto the street a few days ago to maintain law and order and they beat one "suspect" to death without being taken to court for their 'illegitimate acts. It reminds the people of what military dictator Zia and Ershad did during their regimes smashing the innocent people under military truck while a procession was marching on the city's main thoroughfare in 1983 by Ershad, or killing soldiers indiscriminately in barracks without trial by Zia who allegedly plotting against him. At that time no soldier who did that heinous crime being ordered by Zia, accused of violation of human rights was punished, despite the fact that civilians had been arrested without any warrant or probable cause. The judiciary chose magistrates who were sympathizers with the armed forces to decide the cases and, moreover, provided no public defender to civilians who were unable to pay for a lawyer the majority. Indeed, what seems to prevail is the old mentality of ascribing the label of "enemy" to certain groups of the population who are thought to have forfeited their civil rights when entering the criminal life. It is as if such position justified illegal acts by the police and other forces, acts that infringe the democratic rule of law.