We have been hearing much about zero tolerance in these past many months. The implication, as we understand it from the perspective of the government, is that nonsense of any kind will not be acceptable. Indeed, anything which upsets social order or threatens the working of normal politics will be dealt with in justified harshness. We understand the point. In a larger sense, we agree with the determination of the authorities that the sinister forces which have been busy trying to instill fear into our collective life through acts of sheer lawlessness cannot but pay the price for their sins.
But while we agree on zero tolerance being an underpinning of the government’s objective of keeping social and political order, we need to serve the caveat that zero tolerance must not be divorced from the concept of rule of law. People dying in ‘crossfires’ or ‘shoot-outs’ or ‘gunfights’ are not particularly good examples of the law doing its work, for the good reason that they do anything but uphold the law.

Tolerance at level zero means or should mean a determination on the part of the State to make it hard for criminality to operate, should make it easy for those who violate the law to be identified, detained and produced in court. It should then be for the court or courts to go vigorously into pursuing the charges slapped on such individuals the better to reassure society that the rule of law is inviolable and sacrosanct, that it is a powerful guarantee of criminals and their godfathers paying the price for their transgressions.

Shooting criminals or alleged criminals dead shuts off all possibilities of digging deeper into the roots of crime. It is only when the law enforcing and security forces haul individuals suspected or guilty of committing crimes before the courts that the principle of zero tolerance acquires a proper sense of purpose. As we reflect on the idea, we note that the minister for shipping has spoken of zero tolerance of the activities of those who have been commandeering rivers and land along the rivers. In the on-going operations against drug dealers, zero tolerance happens to be the theme. It is a fine sentiment. But it needs to be given flesh and blood, not to mention legality, through the courts taking over at a certain point from the security forces.

And this emphasis on zero tolerance must encompass, if we mean to create a society where fear and lawlessness will not any more degrade citizens’ lives, wider areas. God knows there are myriad patches in our society where zero tolerance must be the norm. When influential individuals engage in a sinister campaign to push BRTC vehicles off the roads in the northern regions of the country in order for their privately-owned buses to ply on the roads, zero tolerance is called for. When citizens die under the wheels of rashly-driven buses and trucks, it becomes important --- despite the powerful men standing in the way of justice --- for the law to assert itself, for the concept of zero tolerance to step in mightily.

And that is not all. No society can thrive through hypocrisy. No nation can grasp at the future when the law is not seen to be applied to all men and women equally and with the same degree of engagement. With its long history of suffering through share market scandals, this nation has paid a price. When the policy of zero tolerance does not touch the men who have made a havoc of Janata Bank, a terrible precedent is set for the future. With all those loud whispers about what went wrong with Farmers Bank and who presided over the disaster, it makes sense to argue that the weapon of zero tolerance should be applied to punish those responsible for these gargantuan lapses.

Governance on a selective basis undermines people’s faith in politics, which is why zero tolerance, as an integral component of the rule of law, must be applied in dealing with the corrupt and the immoral across the land. When impoverished peasants, unable to return the loans they have taken from banks, are pursued by the law but nothing happens to the fraudulently affluent who have pilfered national resources, things begin to fall apart. The centre cannot hold. Zero tolerance mutates into the outrageously tolerant. The rule of law takes a bad mauling.

Syed Badrul Ahsan is the Editor-in-Charge at The Asian Age.