Controversial advisers must not be given refuge within political parties

The country is now in an election atmosphere. The current caretaker government has just three months left in office. In the past one and a half years, the government has not been entirely successful in all areas; there have been both successes and failures.

However, controversy has surrounded a few advisers from the beginning. These advisers have embarrassed the government at different times. In particular, two student advisers have been involved in various controversies. Before the election, these two advisers wish to join political parties to contest.

This would be a dangerous and self-defeating decision. If controversial advisers contest elections under any political party, not only will that party be questioned, but the entire election and government will come under scrutiny. It would appear that the party won in collusion with the government and that the government worked to ensure the victory of a particular party. This will create a severe political crisis for democracy.

For several days, there has been debate in the political arena regarding these controversial advisers. The government has asked the two advisers to resign, but they have not done so. One adviser has publicly stated that he intends to participate in the upcoming election, with less than ninety days remaining.

With less than three months before the national parliament elections, the government must fully function as a caretaker administration. The primary duty of a caretaker government is to carry out routine responsibilities and refrain from policy decisions during this period. Even in advanced democracies, government activities are limited ninety days before elections. If an adviser wishes to contest an election during this period, they have no moral right to retain their advisory role, and the party they join will become controversial.

Following the July popular uprising, the interim government led by Professor Dr. Muhammad Yunus was formed on 8 August. Currently, the advisory council has 23 members, initially including two student representatives.

Initially, the impartiality of the advisory council was not questioned. However, two advisers became involved in various controversies. One adviser faced criticism over weapons, irregular allocations in his area, and a contracting licence in his father’s name. Such controversial actions would only harm any political party.

Another student adviser has been criticized for various controversial remarks, occasionally posting statements on Facebook that put the government in difficult situations. The government will make a swift decision regarding these advisers. BNP, Jamaat, and other political parties should also clearly state that they will not provide shelter to these controversial advisers.

Khaborwala/TSN