Within a month or so of expressing its opinion that the 7 January election wasn’t free and fair, a high-level delegation from the US visited Bangladesh last week. The visit is broadly being termed as a trip to normalise relations between the two countries. The members of the visiting US delegation included Rear Admiral Eileen Laubacher, senior director for South Asia, National Security Council and Afreen Akhter, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, South and Central Asia.
While the official discussions focussed on promoting trade and commerce, tackling climate change as well as security and stability of the Indo-Pacific region, there were also talks on labour standards and rights, human rights and such issues.
The words of Awami League general secretary Obaidul Quader reflect the relief felt by the ministers with this start of the process to normalise relations. He said, “They (BNP) did not get what they wanted from the US, what they wanted from Washington. They had wanted to hear that there would be sanctions on the government.”
In the meantime, Afreen Akhter met with BNP secretary general Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir and the party’s standing committee member Amir Khasru Mahmud Chowdhury, both recently released from jail, but they said nothing on this head. They would hardly say anything if there was nothing to say. However, the embassy’s Facebook page welcomed the fruitful discussion with BNP’s secretary general on the current political landscape in Bangladesh and the issue of thousands of opposition members in prison. It wrote, “Looking forward to continued engagement.”
If we want democracy, human rights and the rule of law, it is imperative for everyone to focus on political institutions. Just as this applies to us, it also applies to our foreign friends and development partners as well
Other than the embassy, the government or BNP, it is not possible for the rest of us to understand the meaning of ‘fruitful’ talks regarding the incarcerated opposition leaders and activists. It can be possible, though, to imagine all sort of possibilities with the mention of “looking forward to continued engagement” with BNP. However, that certainly does not give any sort of indication of the question of democracy or the rule of law.
Afreen Akhter met with a few representatives of civil society too and the embassy’s Facebook page states, “Civil society plays a vital role in fostering a healthy democracy and driving positive change…. We will continue to engage (with the civil society) on democracy and human rights issues, and we call on the government of Bangladesh to do so too.”
At least three of the five members of civil society with whom the delegation met, have already become thorns in flesh of the government and ruling party. Of them, human rights organisation Odhikar’s Adilur Rahman Khan was already sent to jail and fined in a controversial case in a lower court and had to remain behind bars for some days before he could appeal.
A few months before that, the application to renew the registration of the non-government organisation Odhikar was rejected and for a decade now all foreign funds for the organisation have been held up or not given permission to be released.
Two renowned personalities of two research organisations – economist Debapriya Bhattacharya of the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD) and journalist Zillur Rahman of the Centre for Governance Studies (CGS) – for long have been at the receiving end of the government’s barbs—Debapriya for a relatively longer time. Basically ever since Awami League came to power in 2009, its ministers have expressed their irritation and anger with his various opinions and observations.
As for Zillur, the ire against him seems to have suddenly flared up further. Ministers suddenly withdrew themselves from the dialogue, ‘Bay of Bengal Conversations’, organised by CGS in October last year. After that the central bank’s Financial Intelligence Unit sought information from all banks about Zillur’s bank accounts. The police’s Criminal Investigation Department (CID) summoned some staff of CGS to their office and interrogated them. Certain organisations within the country and outside described this as intimidating harassment and expressed their concern.
Afreen Akhter’s words emphasising the role of civil society in establishing democracy are nothing new. Speaking about the 7 January election during the regular briefing on 31 January, spokesperson of the US state department Matthew Miller called upon the government to create the opportunity for meaningful participation of members of the opposition, the media and civil society in the democratic process and civil life.
There have been a lot of discussions over the past one decade on dissenting views, civil society and the free media. Even at the UN Universal Periodic Review (UPR) last November concerning the state of human rights in Bangladesh, recommendations were made to bring a halt to the harassment and coercion of members of the civil society and NGOs. Earlier in September last year, the resolution adopted at the European Parliament had also called for a safe and enabling environment for non-government development organisations, human rights activists and the religious minorities in Bangladesh.
Even after all that, the trend of shrinking space for the civil society’s freedom of expression and participation in development policymaking, has not halted. The most internationally well-known Bangladeshi, Nobel Laureate Prof. Dr. Muhammad Yunus’ legal harassment and the snatching of some of his social business establishments, had undoubtedly struck fear into the hearts of non-partisan intellectuals and social organisers. This fear has best been expressed by Prof. Rehman Sobhan when he writes, “citizens fear they can no longer look to our courts to protect their constitutional rights.”(Prothom Alo, 21 January 2024).
If political parties and institutions are rendered non-functional, will the civil society organisations be able to function as alternatives? How effective would that be for democracy? This is no new question. There is no doubt about the pressing need for a vibrant role to be played by the civil society in democracy. But then again, there is ample evidence of the civil society organisations inevitably being rendered ineffective in the face of an eroding democracy and the rise of authoritarianism. There are several research-based publications in this regard too. However, the response of the US-based National Democratic Institute (NDI)’s director, political programmes, Ivan Doherty, is that civil society cannot replace political parties.
Ivan Doherty writes that the international community has promoted civic organisations, assisted them and supported their expansion, often building on the ruins of discredited political parties. This policy often becomes a mantra. But at the end of the day, it damages political equilibrium. Undermining political parties and the parliament can effectively open the doors to populist leaders who will seek to bypass the institutions of government and the rule of law.
Our experience is hardly any different. So if we want democracy, human rights and the rule of law, it is imperative for everyone to focus on political institutions. Just as this applies to us, it also applies to our foreign friends and development partners as well.
* Kamal Ahmed is a senior journalist
* This column appeared in the print and online edition of Prothom Alo and has been rewritten for the English edition by Ayesha Kabir