Dr Hossain Zillur Rahman played an important role in political negotiation when he was an advisor to the caretaker government in 2007-08. He is also the executive chairman of the private research organisation Power and Participation Research Centre (PPRC) and chairperson of BRAC. He spoke to Prothom Alo about the student-people's mass uprising, activities and competency-capacity evaluation of the interim government, their responsibilities and debate on constitutional continuity in post-mass uprising time. AKM Zakaria and Iftekhar Mahmud took the interview. Read the part-1 today.
Overall, how do you evaluate the student-people's mass uprising on 5 August?
Hossain Zillur Rahman: This must be considered as an unprecedented event in the history of Bangladesh. It was expected in one sense and it was unexpected in another sense. The past 15 years, especially the last 10 years, will have to be seen differently in the 53 years of the history of Bangladesh. The trend of progress of Bangladesh was generally effective, that fundamentally went in the opposite direction during the last 10 years of Sheikh Hasina’s rule. People have a self-dignity, but we saw that none has it due to grandiose of development and misleading campaigns. Killing, enforced disappearance, fictitious cases and torture became a daily phenomenon. Torture is carried out using state mechanisms and victims had to carry the immense sufferings of insults on roads. No rules for state mechanisms existed. People could no longer bear it, but they had been tolerating this silently. Overall, the dignity of everyone was hurt. Sufferings of people had been mocked. Such a situation could not last that long. So, this change was expected in that sense.
On the other hand, it was unexpected because the political opponents or the forces that were supposed to bring this change had not been successful after many attempts. We have seen the scenario of these attempts and failures throughout 2023. Finally, students could do it and the main reason for their success was that they could involve people from all walks of life in that movement. The sacrifice of Abu Sayeed and many others broke the fear that had tamed the people this long. This physiological overcome of breaking the fear ousted the government. People got involved in the student movement. So, it was understood the government had been in the house of card this long. In fact, the rule of Sheikh Hasina had lasted on the power of police. The rapid deterioration of this police structure led to the swift fall of the government.
Political parties of the country could not oust the government. Is it the revelation of people’s no confidence in traditional political parties? Why didn't people join them?
Hossain Zillur Rahman: I see the issue in other ways. It has been understood since 2023 that people want a change. People wanted to participate in the movement of political parties and also joined, but political parties could not organise the movement properly. What was necessary for it was a desperate courage. Political parties could not show it, but students had made people brave by showing desperate courage. That is why people took to the streets with them. When the dam breaks, everything is washed away. Students were not in millions in number but they played the role of vanguard. Since they did that work properly, millions of people took to the streets.
The interim government led by professor Muhammad Yunus was formed after the fall of the government. How would you evaluate the activities of the government in the post-student-people's mass uprising situation?
Hossain Zillur Rahman: There are two ways to see the post-student-people's mass uprising situation. Firstly, if we see from the bureaucratic point of view, I must say the government must have gone through a disorder at the beginning. So, the main task is to restore the normalcy from this disorder, and that has not been achieved entirely yet. Secondly, if we see from a revolutionary point of view, then it was not only to restore the situation, it was also necessary to take the initiative to unite the desire of the people effectively to build Bangladesh anew after the fall of the autocrat. The main task of the government could have been to integrate the country taking that mood into consideration.
Has that mood dissipated?
Not fully but I no more see that mood of unity. The government should have spoken with people, gone to people. This won’t happen unilaterally, let alone amid all protocols. Steps should have been taken to hold massive dialogue with people. It should have been done at the very beginning to win people’s confidence and get them assured. It’s a political endeavor. We have to keep in mind that this government is not political in the traditional sense but its duties are political. The mass uprising was not brought about by noted and distinguished persons but the commoners. Direct communication with these commoners was needed.
It’s true that the fallen autocratic government had many cronies. Their leader had fled but the cronies did not. They are everywhere—from businesses to bureaucracy. Countering attacks and efforts to destabilize the country by them were also a major task of the government which they did. But to me whether that ‘mood’ of the people was utilized for the greater cause is of utmost importance.
Another thing must be kept in mind. The government is a part of the state. But the country’s economy is run by the private sector. Whether they will become active depends on if a relationship of trust is forged with them. Where is an open engagement with the business people? FBCCI is not the only stakeholder here. I don’t see any initiative to hold dialogue with common business people to find a solution.
But the government insiders say they are trying to tackle the crisis.
Tackling the crisis is a practical task. They have to do it. It's not a matter of telling people, it's a matter of accomplishment. The government is turning the matter of action into a matter of saying. The main function of the economy is to build confidence and improve the business environment. Consider whether the government is doing that or not. Common people want to create a new Bangladesh. How do we proceed with them, where is the effective initiative? Advisers are not seen leaving their offices while they should have gone to the ground more now. Even if the common people see them, they will understand that the government is working. I don't see that. We need to look at things more broadly than just talking in the language of bureaucracy.
Does the age of advisors matter? Many are raising these questions.
Age is not an issue. If age is the problem, why was responsibility taken? It was necessary to connect people at different levels, to listen to them, not just for the sake of it, but with attention, with sincerity.
Has the interim government been able to establish control over the state apparatus?
The way the government talks about its goals is very lofty but largely not strategic. The way they have implemented it is becoming more bureaucratic than ever. Now I see that everything is being done bureaucratically. The government bowed down to pressure in extending promotion indiscriminately and auto pass in face of demand of a section of students. What do these incidents indicate? Unnecessary promotion has increased, making the administration somewhat ineffective. The bureaucrats who are more inclined to exchanging files are not so interested to focus on actual improvement of the situation on the ground. The main focus should be making the government active, which is not happening.
Many people think that this government is one of the most popular governments to come to power in Bangladesh. Does the government understand its power? There are some indecisiveness and changes of decision. Is the government aware of its power? Or does it understand its weaknesses?
Public support and people’s aspirations are the strength of this government. However, it will be a big mistake if the government considers this support as ‘taken for granted’. This government did not assume power through any electoral test. This government’s acceptability is the public support and aspirations. Now it will be a sign of this government’s weakness if it confines itself in bureaucratic tangles and continues to magnify the conspiracies of the cronies of the fallen government.
It is important for advisors to remain clear on whether they are bureaucratic leaders, or a leadership in a dynamic reality. So far the government has made 10 reform commissions. It is possible to form more such reform commissions. But it needs to be seen whether they become hypothetical or not. Here is a matter of prioritising.
This government is smaller than the political government. But they have to deal with an unusual situation. There is pressure from the public desire that mass uprisings have created. How dynamic is this government to deal with such a situation?
Whether the government is dynamic or not should be seen through the index. This government has three tasks—routine work, reforms and political transition. To do this, it is necessary to understand the needs of the ground. Firstly, I would say that several initiatives have been taken from the economic side. Initiatives have been taken to stop the places where there was definite corruption. Secondly, reforms need to be discussed more openly and priorities need to be clarified. Reforms needed to be framed with strategic thinking, which apparently is not happening.
Thirdly, creating a political roadmap. This can be specified through dialogue with political parties. There are lots of debates and discussions regarding the tenure of this government. From the beginning we hear about reasonable timeframes. But what is a reasonable time? No theoretical understanding of logics would be accepted here. The meaning of reasonable time would change if specific and satisfactory answers to public aspiration are not available. Tenure would be shortened in that case.
You mentioned political transition is one of the most important works of this government. How can the government prepare for it?
We have to think afresh about the local government. I think this government should hold at least one local government election at some point of its tenure. This will be a test for the government. But for that, the first thing needed to be done is to hold an election under party symbols which was introduced in local government in 2014. Also the qualifications to participate in the elections have to be amended through discussion so that oppressor, murder accused and corrupt people cannot participate. Holding the local government polls successfully can be deemed a preparation for holding national elections.