Interim-Caretaker System is Incoherent with Modern Politics

Poll-bound Bangladesh is currently facing a political deadlock just months before the election.

The largest opposition, Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) is demanding a neutral and interim caretaker government during the election to ensure freedom and fairness. BNP is citing alleged irregularity and meddling and stating that there is a lack of trust in the current system, where the election is held under the incumbent government.

However, the caretaker system was abolished in 2011 through the 15th Amendment of the constitution. The incumbent Awami League government is rejecting BNP’s demand and is determined to hold the election under the current arrangement. This contradicting demand and determination are leading the country towards a political deadlock. Against this backdrop, it is worth revisiting how’s the interim-caretaker system around the world performing today.

Interim-Caretaker System

There are several types of caretaker government. In the context of Bangladesh or Pakistan, it is a transitional government that works before, during, and after the election until the next government takes over. Apart from Bangladesh and Pakistan, there is hardly any practice of the system in today’s world.

However, there are caretaker systems in many countries. But most of them are ceremonial. For instance, in Australia, the incumbent Prime Minister and his government hold the election under him and play the role of caretaker. In Canada, the incumbent Prime Minister also plays the same role just like Australia.

There are some provisional or transitional governments in countries with prolonged conflicts. Conflict-prone countries of Africa and the Middle East have employed interim transitional governments to stabilize the situation. There are interim-transitional governments in war-torn Yemen, Sudan, Libya, Chad, etc. But these governments are different from the concepts existing in Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Who Mostly Benefits from the System?

In transitional governments associated with war and conflicts, military and security forces play a central role. These governments are mostly either military-run or backed in nature. The military is also the main beneficiary of such types of governments. Empirical cases suggest that as they enjoy benefits, they hardly advance the transition process. Instead, they try to prolong it and enjoy the perks of playing a central role in the government.

Even in Pakistan, the existing caretaker system provides opportunities for the military- the country’s ultimate victor to exercise its control over domestic politics. In Pakistan, personas close to the military are appointed by the government. The military takes control of the process to ensure that the next government is also a pro-military government.

The latest appointment of Pakistan’s caretaker for the next election- Anwarul Haq Kakar also shows that the military plays a ‘kingmaker’ role in the appointment. Senator Kakar is a powerful Senator from the military’s recruitment hub, Balochistan. He is close to the military and hence got the appointment as the chief of the caretaker. Kakar is likely to lean towards the pro-military parties.

However, this is not the first time in the history of Pakistan that the caretaker government leaning towards the military by serving its interest. Traditionally, the caretaker is almost always endorsed by the military. 

In the experience of Bangladesh, the last interim caretaker in 2007 also facilitated the military to take over the country. After the infamous 1/11 incident, the technocratic interim government was formed in the aftermath of political deadlock over the election. The military-backed government resorted to a ‘minus two’ formula to sideline two of the biggest political parties in Bangladesh. It arrested top brasses of both BNP and Awami League and tried to establish a ‘third choice’ to serve its vested interest. The government ‘overstayed’ for two years instead of three months only, and only arranged an election after a nationwide protest for a democratic election. The bitter experience of this ad-hoc system led the parliamentarians to abolish it in parliament in 2011.

Hence, in conflict-prone countries and in the interim-technocratic system, the caretaker government benefits vested institutions such as the military or foreign power to manipulate the election process. However, in Australia or Canada, the incumbent government acts as interim until the next Prime Minister takes over. In this system, there is hardly any opportunity for such misuse.

Lastly, the interim caretaker is an obsolete system in the current political world considering its illiberal rationale and scope for misuse. For a nation, it is also a hindrance to a bipartisan consensus as it keeps mistrust alive and creates skepticism about the existing process. 

Moreover, it mostly benefits the military as seen in conflict-prone countries, Pakistan and even in Bangladesh in its last term. As Bangladesh is moving towards its next general election every minute, it will be interesting to watch what is going to happen over the next four months and how the Awami League and BNP are going to decide regarding the election-time government.

Source: Motiur Rahman

Motiur Rahman is an Independent Researcher and Analyst 

×