After its traumatic emergence as a sovereign state, Bangladesh adopted a constitution providing for a parliamentary democracy. This decision reflected a South Asian attachment to the Westminster model. It seemed to be the right choice for a homogenous people who were politically aware and who shared a common élan of a just concluded independence struggle. Bangladesh’s parliamentary journey has, however, followed a checkered course. Since the beginning of this year, it has been struggling once again to put the ship of state on an even keel.
The first upheaval came when the founding father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman decided to become a powerful president and transformed Awami League, the party of freedom movement, into the left-leaning Bangladesh Peasants and Workers League. This experiment ended with his tragic assassination on Aug. 15, 1975. It took his successor Ziaur Rahman nearly three years to promulgate a revised constitution. His main political legacy has been the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) designed to be the main alternative to the restored Awami Leagu (AL). Both parties have been dynastic with Begum Khaleda Zia (Ziaur Rahman’s widow) and Hasina Wajed (Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s daughter) leading the BNP and Awami League respectively.
Historically, they have represented rival interpretations of the idea of Bangladesh. Awami League began with democracy, socialism, secularism and nationalism as the fundamental principles of the state. Secularism was deliberately overstated in the battle with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. After independence, the Islamic identity of the people reasserted itself quickly. Initially, nationalism was defined in intense ethnic and linguistic terms. Before long, it needed to be differentiated from an equally robust Bengali nationalism on the Indian side of the border. The nation also needed to overcome extreme polarization between freedom fighters and the rest
Gen. Ziaur Rahman founded BNP to resolve some of these inherent tensions. His concept of Bangladeshi identity sought synthesis with the Islamic heritage of the nation; it also gave nationalism a territorial base. He tried to heal the internal divisions. BNP also wanted to make state socialism and free enterprise a matter of political choice. Political space opened up slowly for other tendencies as well. In time, Jamat-e-Islami and Islami Oikya Jote (Islamic Unity Front) participated in the electoral process and have been BNP’s coalition partners. In the international context, Awami League has often been dubbed “pro-Indian” while BNP has laid claims to a stronger assertion of national sovereignty.
This should have provided for a healthy multiparty parliamentary competition. Indeed, for 16 years power has alternated between Begum Khaleda Zia and Hasina Wajed. The two dominant parties have, however, never fully accepted electoral verdicts and while in opposition, each party has tried to make governance by the other difficult through boycotts of parliament and street agitation. Over the years, politics has become more prone to violence. Apart from its negative impact on economy, political turmoil has produced disenchantment with the parliamentary system. The rise of extremist groups wedded to the use of force is directly related to this disillusionment.
In the climate of opinion created by the global war on terror, the role played by radical Islamist movements in Bangladesh politics has been exaggerated. This is not to deny that some small groups, such as Jamaat ul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) and Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh (JMJB) have preached a revolutionary doctrine. External pressures on governments since 2003 have led to bans on such groups. In retaliation, they have demonstrated their survival in the political undergrowth by carrying out terrorist acts. There is doubtless proliferation of small arms, which is partly a legacy of the 1971 guerrilla war and partly related to increasing flow of weapons throughout South Asia. Crime syndicates and fringe political groups cooperate all over the region.
Islam has a long history in Bangladesh. Well before Muslim conquerors swept down the Ganges plain, there were Arab and convert settlements on the coast in the 9th century. Islam was spread almost entirely by Sufis who offered tolerance, inclusion and syncretism of old traditions and the new faith to the people. By and large, Bengal represented a mellow and moderate approach to matters of faith. Recent acts of terror, particularly the arrival on the scene of the suicide bomber are utterly incompatible with the Islamic tradition of Bengal and point to a deeper malaise in national politics.
Bangladesh was to hold fresh elections before Jan. 25, 2007. A constitutional amendment of 1996 requires that elections be held under a neutral caretaker government. Hasina Wajed’s demand for measures that would ensure a level playing field was backed by street power. As the confrontation deepened the caretaker government now being led by Fakhruddin Ahmad, who has strong links with international financial institutions, started going beyond the mere task of supervising an election. It declared emergency that is due to expire in May but can be extended and, more significantly, postpone elections. It also embarked upon an anti-corruption drive which has already taken into its net important political figures including Khaleda Zia’s son Tareq Rahman.
Perhaps taking a cue from Pakistan, it also briefly signaled an intention to exile both Khaleda Zia and Hasina Wajed though it has given up that highly divisive idea. The interim government has not, however, abandoned the intention of removing old leadership to help bring up a new one. How far this project of re-engineering the political class succeeds will be seen only over time.
Much depends on the hidden agenda of the Bangladesh Army. So far, it has avoided a takeover preferring to act through Fakharudin Ahmad. Bangladesh’s best hope is a new national compact between the warring political parties for which the two veteran ladies would have to transcend personal rivalry and vendetta. In the final analysis, their ideological differences are not unbridgeable and the nation has enough dynamism to meet the challenges of our time.
— Tanvir Ahmad Khan is a former foreign secretary of Pakistan. He also served as Pakistan’s ambassador to Bangladesh.
