The Question

This question is posted on behalf of Rezwan-ul-Alam, Transparency International, Bangladesh.

I am looking for examples and studies on election-time caretaker governments that regularly oversee elections and hand over power to newly elected governments. 

In the case of Bangladesh, there has been a caretaker government provision that was annulled by the Court recently. A debate is now ongoing on this topic in view of the next elections. Transparency International in Bangladesh is conducting a review on election-time governments and would like to study examples of other countries. 

• What examples such as that of Bangladesh are there of election-time governments in practicing parliamentary democracies? 
• What useful studies or links are available on this topic?

Thank you!

Summary of Responses

From the Tunisian example 

After Tunisian revolution on January 14th, 2011, government and constitution were dissolved. Mohamed Ghannouchi formed a transient caretaker government. Following further public protests, Ghannouchi himself resigned on February 27th, and Beji Caid el Sebsi became Prime Minister. He formed an election-time government. All members of this government swore not to participate in elections as candidates.

On October 23rd, 2011, there were the country’s first free election where more than four millions of Tunisians voted for an assembly to draft a constitution and shape a new government.

The election-time government left office on December 24th, 2011, when the Interim President Moncef Marzouki, elected by the Constituent Assembly, appointed Hamadi Jebali from the political coalition which had won the elections.

Dear Rezwan,

I was on a USAID/IFES pre-election technical assessment mission to Bangladesh in August 2000.  Since coming upon Bangladesh's system of appointing an interim, caretaker administration prior to elections, I have yet to come upon another example of such an approach being implemented on a de jure basis.  (Of course, similar arrangements are often made ad hoc, as the result of a political settlement or peace agreement.)

For what it's worth, you may be able to obtain a copy of the 2000 IFES report from the US Embassy in Dhaka; it was widely circulated by them at the time.  Otherwise, I could send a copy upon request to: [email protected]

Best success for your research.

Regards,

// Dan Finn //

Dr Daniel Finn

Consultant, International Law & Public Affairs

“Election-time governments” in practicing parliamentary democracies dedicated solely to providing interim type governance is a concept flawed insofar as governments when elected do have a mandate to govern subject to constituent constitutional process and protocols. Parliamentary ‘convention’ now trenched within Westminster form of parliamentary governance dictates that during the electoral period, the incumbent government is strictly limited as to any introduction of new legislation including the negotiating of new treaties and/or policy regulations which includes public appointments. During the electoral process all governance is subject to a civic electoral type of governance mandate strictly limiting the ability of government to initiate new public process until the election has expressed the public desire of the people.

You may wish to consider the Transition Authority Group (UNTAG) which administered Namibia under UN aegis during the period of transition from a non independent state until full independent state status which followed the 1989 election which was designated to decide which political entity would govern---a choice rendered by the eligible electorate.

Dear Rezwan,

The normal procedure in Western countries is that once an election is called, the incumbent government continues in office, but doesn't take any political initiatives. The political process is so to speak "put on stand-by", until the new government that is formed on basis of the electoral outcome has been formed.

For an example of a protracted period of "stand-by", look into the latest Belgian elections.

Sincerely

Rikke Kjær

Election observer

Pakistan imposes de jure appointment of caretaker governments prior and during elections.

Link: Pakistan Fact-sheet - Caretaker Cabinet 

Manuel

Caretaker governments are not uncommon in Western democracies, for example, whenever a government in office is defeated on a 'No Confidence' vote in the Assembly, usually the Prime Minister or President, is allowed to stay on until fresh elections are held. A similar situation may arise if the head of government resigns. These situations may come about for non-electoral reasons. Some commentators may argue that the recent 'imposition' of technical governments in Greece and Italy were caretaker governments which came about for economic and financial reasons and not to safeguard free and fair elections in those States. Caretaker governments are also often established to pave the way for transitional elections from a military to a civilian administration as happened in some conflict areas in the African Union and in Pakistan on a couple of occasions in the past two decades-I observed the Caretaker Govt in Pakistan organized election in 1993.

The Bangladesh Caretaker government system was however somewhat different. The system was ushered in during the second half of the 1990s after great agitation by the opposition of the government of the day. The Constitution was amended to allow the caretaker government system to be introduced. It was intended to cure the ills of flawed elections conducted by the government in power by enabling that government to step down and an unelected entity take over to organize the election. The concept was flawed, if it was intended to be made permanent, and within little more than a decade it broke down with almost disastrous electoral consequences.

The early draft of the electoral Act of South Sudan had certain features similar to those of Bangladesh- I had express a negative view of those provisions, but I am not sure whether or not the final version follow the Bangladesh model.

Nepal has considered this issue in recent weeks while the major parties have negotiated an agreement for a caretaker government led by the Chief Justice to take office for the period leading to new elections following the collapse of the Constituent Assembly last year.  I'm attaching the English translation of the agreement reached on 13 March.

I believe the Caretaker Government system in Bangladesh was a unique one compared to any other countries of the world. There are a few forms of election-time governments, but none of the countries had/have such kind of government which has been demolished by the 15th amendment of the Constitution. NDI in 2006 made a comment about Bangladesh's CTG:

“Bangladesh’s Caretaker Government is a unique institution in the development of democracy. Bangladeshis have reason to take pride in this innovation. The Caretaker Government arose out of the specific conditions of the 1991 and 1995/96 elections. Its purpose is to ensure no one party has access to state resources, physical and human, in such a way as to influence the outcome of the election. The Caretaker Government model in the past has succeeded in instilling public confidence in the electoral process and results.”

Other than the current Nepal example, experiences with transitional political arrangements (although perhaps not directly relevant to Bangladesh where it's institutionalised) were recently looked at here:

• Charles Call, UN Mediation and the Politics of Transition After Constitutional Crises, International Peace Institute, 22 February 2012, http://www.ipacademy.org/publication/policy-papers/detail/349-un-mediation-and-the-politics-of-transition-after-constitutional-crises.html