Our outgoing Anti-Corruption Commission chairman Iqbal Mahmud on 8 March said he has compromised with himself. “I moved away from decisions sometimes by compromising with myself whenever it seemed to me that the matter may tarnish the image of the country,” he said. “The image of the state is the first priority to me”. According to the global anti-graft organisation Transparency International, Bangladesh ranks 146th in the corruption index at present. While he took over, the position was 145th. Bangladesh descended to 149th in 2018. Is the image of the country at all protected then?
Is this the real cause they did not dare to investigate the corruption of big projects of the government on the excuse of the country’s image?
When anyone incites the fury of the government, the Anti-Corruption Commission becomes proactive to dig out his or her assets. There is no dilly-dallying if they are from the opposition parties. Samrat, Papia and GK Shamim from the ruling party can also be cited as an example. When the party leaders and the administration became angry with them, only then did they come to the attention of ACC.
Recently the issue of the image of the country came up in the remarks of chief justice Syed Mahmud Hossain. He made the remark while hearing the appeal against the bail order of certain Md Golam Sarwar who was accused in a case under investigation for a year. The case was filed under the Digital Security Act.
And there is no explanation of the image of the country in the constitution, the Digital Security Act and other acts. Moreover, the issue of image of the country has not been mentioned in the descriptions of offences against the state and seditious offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure. That means what I and many others like me consider to be fair and legitimate criticism and freedom of expression, may be considered by the complainants or investigating police officials as tarnishing the image of the country. So it is highly likely for the definition to differ from person to person.
The concept of on what grounds the image of the country may be tarnished, is usually not supposed to be different from other countries. The matter is different if the country is autocratic like North Korea or has a one-party communist rule like China or the kingdoms of the Middle East.
Criticising the heads of the government and politicians is part and parcel of democracy and the stronger and sharper the criticism, the brighter is the image of the country. The democracy of such countries is said to be vibrant and citizens’ freedom is unhindered. That is seen in the countries of Europe and North America. That also existed in our neighbouring India in the recent past. In the recent years, the rise of extreme Hindu nationalism has harmed that and democracy has deteriorated there. The country is partially free in consideration of the freedom of its citizens, according to the report-2021 of the Freedom House.
Bangladesh is also partially free in the assessment of Freedom House and is a country of hybrid rule as per Economist. The causes of such assessments are widely discussed. How much do the indicators of political and civic freedom exist? Important issues of all rights include the election process, multi-party system and participation of all, transparency in ruling the country, the gravity of corruption, and the freedom of expression, freedom of thinking and research, right to association and the judiciary of independence.
The election system has eroded over the last one decade, the consequence of which is legalising voter less nomination. The chief election commissioner openly questioned another commissioner for self criticism, has asked his colleague how much will be demean the commission. The reality is that there is no scope to demean the commission any more. Is not the image of the country tarnished by the reports the United State Department or European Union made in their assessments of the last national election?
Corruption remains a big problem due to the politicisation of anti-corruption activities. As a result of weaknesses in following appropriate process, the security forces enjoy indemnity despite violation of human rights. The issues of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and custodial deaths have been discussed. In the review of the repression-prevention committee of the United Nations, they have recommended conducting independent investigation in every incident to stop indemnity of the law enforcing agencies. Are not these incidents of human rights violation considered for the image of the country?
Bangladesh ranks 151 out of 180 countries according to a recent assessment by Reporters Without Borders, the index which is worldwide recognised for the freedom of news media. Bangladesh’s position is below of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
RSF in its assessment said Bangladeshi journalists are the top victims of stringent measures of Awami League. Freedom of new media has been curbed, the incidents of attacks by political activists on the field level journalists have increased. Journalists are being arrested arbitrarily and measures are being taken at random to shut websites.
Another organisation on the freedom of expression Article 19 said a total of 198 cases have been filed and 457 people made accused under the Digital Security Act in 2020. Some 75 professional journalists have been sued in 41 cases. Certainly no one will claim that the image of the country has been brightened by the dismal picture of the mass media and the freedom of expression?
Bangladesh is signatory to political and citizen rights affairs international charter ICPPR. In Article 19 of this charter mentioning the duties and responsibilities in enjoying freedom of expression, it points out two areas where the state can impose legal restrictions, but there is nothing about the image of the state.
The scope to impose restriction for the state’s security, law and order and public health is limited to a great extent. In the question of expressing opinions on the digital technology and platforms, there is a consensus in the UN forums, it is said there that this freedom will be like offline.
In 2019, UN freedom of expression affairs special rapporteur at the time, David Kayem clearly said as per sub section 3 of Article-19, there is no legal basis of including ‘hatred against the government in power, or ousting government from power’ for tackling the instigation.
According to Prothom Alo’s research, some 80 per cent of cases have been filed by the ruling party leaders and activists or police under the Digital Security Act. The patterns of allegations are the same like so-called defaming through sharing distorted pictures or conspiracy against the state. When the ruling party and the government is growing increasingly intolerant against differing opinions and criticism, it is dangerous to give recognition to the arbitrary concept pf ‘image of the country’ in the much-talked-about Digital Security Act . Is not it better avoiding what is not in law?
*Kamal Ahmed is a senior journalist.
*This article, originally published in Prothom Alo print and online editions, has been rewritten in English by Rabiul Islam.
