The Begums of Bangladesh continue to
be at loggerheads with each other one year after the controversial 2014 election,
refusing to cede concessions to the other even in the interest of peace and
security of their country.
The Begums of Bangladesh have nothing in common with each
other except their family name, Rahman. As current leaders of the two main political
dynasties, both Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia have taken turns
at office for most of the country’s existence, keeping the other on a tight
rein and occasionally even throwing the country into turmoil in pursuit of their
personal agendas. To understand the reasons of the current strife, a little
background would be helpful.
Current Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is the daughter of the
founder of Awami League (AL), Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. She has headed the AL
since 1981, and her party has been in power since 2009. Two-time Prime Minister
and current opposition leader, Khaleda Zia, has led the Bangladesh Nationalist
Party (BNP) since 1983, and she is the widow of General Zia-ur-Rahman. Both women
have had several stints in power over the years, fraught with instability due
to their bitter rivalry. In 2007, the military jailed them on charges
of corruption and made some concerted efforts to open up the political arena to other players
but did not succeed in weakening their
hold.
Both parties have very different political agendas for consumption
of the public. The AL seeks a platform on the basis of Bengali language and
culture; the BNP relies on unifying its vote bank on nationalist Bangladeshi sentiment
with alliance of the religious parties, chiefly, Jamaat-e-Islami
(JeI). Media reports often cite the
leaders’ autocratic style of governance and pursuit of politics of revenge as
they trade turns in office, fanning civil unrest to destabilize the other’s government,
jailing opposition leaders by lodging false cases against them, and rendering institutions
like judiciary and security weak and ineffective with nepotism. Owing greatly to
their misguided policies, Bangladesh currently
stands at a ranking of 145/177
countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index of 2014.
Both, Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia attribute the current
political crisis to each other’s stubbornness and lack of political foresight. The
initial stirrings of the present conflict likely happened in 2009 when the AL sought
to make an amendment in the Constitution to undo the care-taker system
introduced in 1996. Under this system, a neutral, impartial interim government oversees
elections to ensure their credibility. Given their history, and distrust of
each other to hold free and fair elections, the caretaker system has provided a
workable solution. As the amendment passed in 2011, the BNP launched massive
country-wide protests which resulted in loss to life and property in staggering
numbers, but the AL government refused to change its stance. Additionally, the ruling AL began war crime trials of the
leaders of religious parties aligned with BNP in 2010, which the New York-based
Human Rights Watch termed legally-flawed, and the BNP insisted were
politically-motivated persecution of its allies.
Concerned
by the growing instability, foreign diplomats, including UN officials, and some
national level leaders tried mediation efforts between the two, albeit unsuccessfully.
Both the US and the EU refused to send their election observers to the
controversial election, and the BNP announced a boycott. Compared to almost 80%
voter turnout at the 2009 election, only 40% vote was cast in the January’14
election (Bangladesh Election Commission) owing to the boycott and election-day
violence, with only 147/300 seats to be contested. The ruling AL won 105 of
those147 seats, while filling 127/153 seats uncontested; winning a staggering
total of 232/300 seats in all (Harvard International Review). Not only was the
election deemed ‘illegal’ by the BNP, most of whose leadership was in jail or
under house arrest at the time, but the international community also showed
strong reservations about the whole process.
The US State
Department issued a statement on January 6, stating that “…the United States is
disappointed by the recent Parliamentary elections in Bangladesh. With more
than half of the seats uncontested and most of the remainder offering only
token opposition, the results of the just-concluded elections do not appear to
credibly express the will of the Bangladeshi people…” , and encouraged
“...immediate dialogue to find a way to hold as soon as possible elections that
are free, fair, peaceful and credible, reflecting the will of the Bangladeshi
people.”
The European Parliament also adopted a Resolution on January
14, 2014 to record its concern: “2013 has reportedly been the most violent year in
post-independence Bangladesh’s history, and the pre-election and election
phases in particular have been marked by widespread violence, with blockades,
strikes and voter intimidation orchestrated mainly by the opposition and with
over 300 people killed since the beginning of 2013, including at least 18 on
election day, with Bangladesh’s fragile economy being paralysed as a result.”
The year
that followed was filled with similar periods of political turbulence, and the
first anniversary of the 2014 election brought renewed calls for a nation-wide
transit strike and anti-government rallies by the BNP, reiterating demands for ‘snap
polls’ under a caretaker government. The AL’s ban on public demonstrations did not
deter BNP from successfully enforcing shutdowns on working days, incurring huge losses
to the economy. The AL is uncomfortable with BNP’s
massive street power and funding that is allegedly attributed to its close
alliance with the JeI. Wary of the perceived attached radical element, Sheikh
Hasina has made the severing of ties with JeI and other religious parties a
pre-requisite for talks with Khaleda Zia, a demand the BNP has refused. Neither
side appears to want to show any flexibility towards the other.
The international community has
repeatedly called on all parties to work together to diffuse the tension. On
January 16, Ravina Shamdasani, a spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner
for Human Rights (OHCHR), urged restraint:
“We urge all political parties to show restraint and to bring
an immediate end to the violence. We also call on the authorities
to ensure the prompt, impartial and effective investigation of all
killings committed – irrespective of whether they were committed
by State or non-State actors.” The European
parliament delegation also paid a four-day visit to Bangladesh last month, led
by Cristian Dan Preda, vice-chairperson of the European Parliament’s subcommittee
on Human Rights, was quoted saying: “We’re here because we’re very concerned
about human rights situation”.
Although
the plight of the common man through this turmoil should be enough to guide the
actions of their leaders, perhaps a look at financial considerations would help
the Begums get their priorities in order. An unstable country is not an
attractive option for foreign investment, not to mention how one unstable
country has the potential to destabilize the whole region – especially one
already as volatile as South Asia.
In
conclusion, this political strife in Bangladesh requires a concerted effort on
the part of both leaders to show an earnest desire for reconciliation and bringing
peace and security in the country. Rising above personal vendettas would
be a crucial first step towards any improvement, before compromise and strategic depth can become the main
strengths of their political strategy. A comprehensive political dialogue aimed
at resolving all issues of discontent, including the caretaker system, war
crimes tribunals and fresh elections is of utmost urgency. Only then can any
future government focus on building and strengthening independent state
institutions to improve long-term prospects of transparent and democratic
governance in Bangladesh.
SouthAsia Magazine, March 2015
