We have entered an era of political dynasticism

How would you evaluate the mass uprising of 2024 after two years? What differences do you see between Bangladesh before 2024 and after?

Asif Mohammad Shahan: Historically, an uprising or, in a broader sense, a revolution does not always fully encapsulate all the aspirations preceding it. After an uprising, the resultant political situation often witnesses the emergence of many forces and sects that think outside the primary aspirations of the movement. It is a normal process. I think we are going through that process as well. The question is, what have we achieved after the uprising? The achievement acceptable to all was the end of an authoritarian regime. Besides, the country transitioned to a democratic system where elections were being held after a long gap.

However, the balance against this achievement is significant failures. If we look back at the 18 months of the interim government, we find that none of the institutions essential for democracy have been created, Parliament has not played its required role, and institutions ensuring accountability have not been strengthened or made effective. From this perspective, the future of our democracy completely depends on our hope that we will have another election in 2030 or 2031; we remain within election-centric democracy. The danger here is, we saw election-centric democracy in 1991 as well. Election-centric democracy, which is not supported by institutions, becomes meaningless after a period. Because then belief in an individual or party not being undemocratic becomes necessary. When such individuals or parties become undemocratic, if institutions cannot prevent them, democracy will never survive.

During the entire tenure of the interim government, there were several crises. Some groups believed, ‘We staged the uprising and everything happened because of us. ’ From this thought, they tried to impose and implement many things forcefully. The main criticism of the interim government is that they did not take any steps in this regard.

Unfortunately, even after the 2026 election, there is no visible political handling of these groups or effective control of mob violence.

The primary message of the uprising was to establish an inclusive and discrimination-free society. However, we have moved far away from inclusivity. We have excluded many parts of society. We have excluded women, failed to protect the rights of religious and ethnic minorities, and liberal voices have been attacked in various ways.

The uprising created a significant public expectation for change. There was a Reform Commission and a Consensus Commission. Political parties also signed the July Charter. After the election, we saw the whole process being subject to the ruling party's desires. Why has this gap between public expectations, the interim government's reform processes, and the reform thinking of political parties been created?

Asif Mohammad Shahan: In an interview with Prothom Alo last year, I mentioned that our entire reform process has become elite-driven. Now what is the danger of an elite-driven reform process? At the beginning of the reform, attempts were made to gather opinions from the public. But when the consensus commission met to discuss the commission’s reports, neither the civic society, the government, nor the political parties tried to explain to the public what they were negotiating about. I place the blame for this failure less on political parties. I also blame the interim government and the civic society of Bangladesh that fought against a hegemonic regime.

An example can be the Upper House. The connection between the Upper House or its formation with the problems of people’s lives was not explained to them. It was not explained what changes would occur in their lives if the Anti-Corruption Commission or the Human Rights Commission became independent, or if there was police reform. As a result, people did not find their ownership in the reform process. If active ownership of the reform process could have been established among the people, they could now create pressure on political parties. Since people were excluded from the reform process, it ultimately became a matter of negotiation among political parties. At this stage, many believed that political parties would eventually reach a point considering the welfare of the people. This never happens. Every political party holds onto whatever is beneficial to them.

BNP knew that if they went to the elections, they would come to power and then they could arrange the reform in their way. BNP also knew that they could if they wanted to, derail the entire process. This is the strength of BNP in negotiations. As a result, there was an unequal negotiation here. There was no reason for the others to match up with the BNP in this unequal negotiation. The way to bring equality to this unequal negotiation was through the active participation of the people. Since people were not given ownership in the reform process, it became more advantageous for the BNP.

When the interim government at the end tried to establish some matters like the referendum question, BNP from their position tried to manipulate it. BNP said very clearly that they agreed at that time so that no trouble arises during the election. Now whether there was any plan by the interim government or other political parties to prevent this from happening — we have not seen any example of it.

In essence, when people are excluded from an elite-driven reform process, it becomes merely a test of the political parties’ strength. In this strength test, the victorious BNP interpreted and analysed the reform in their own way. Political parties do not have the power to challenge the BNP's interpretation.

Again, BNP has managed to establish itself as a political party that can ultimately provide political stability in an unstable situation. To maintain this stability, civic society is not challenging whatever BNP is doing. When ordinances are being interpreted differently, or several aspects of the July Charter are being ignored, a sort of mild criticism is seen from the citizen society.

BNP government has completed five months. How much do you think they have embraced the aspirations of the mass uprising in governance?

Asif Mohammad Shahan: BNP’s economic plan and economic framework are very clear. But from the beginning of the reform process, BNP has believed in one thing — they need a strong government and a strong state apparatus through which they will implement their plans.
Now a strong state can become a dangerous thing, we saw it during Awami League’s time. An institutional framework that supports the economic framework is not being developed by the BNP. This could become a big crisis for the future. Because when the BNP moves to implement its economic programmes, if governance and accountability issues arise, the benefits of these programmes will not reach the public. The type of institutional framework needed to ensure accountability has not been created, thereby inevitably inviting a crisis. To me, this is the biggest limitation of BNP's five months.

Fundamental reforms like those concerning the judiciary, ACC, and Human Rights Commission became uncertain in the first session of the new government. What is the overall future of reform?

Asif Mohammad Shahan: The future of reform does not seem very promising. There’s a numbers game here. Out of the 133 ordinances of the interim government, 97 have been passed in their original state. At first glance, the number might seem a lot. But if you divide them, you will see that some ordinances are only about renaming, some are administrative, some are regulatory, and some are about ensuring accountability. Now if we calculate what percentage of which type of ordinance has passed, an interesting trend emerges.

Ordinances ensuring accountability — like those concerning the judiciary, ACC, Human Rights Commission, or Disappearance Commission — in these areas, a large portion has either been canceled by the BNP, or put on hold to be reintroduced later, or modified to a place where they have become ineffective.

The interim government had become quite dependent on the bureaucracy which obstructed any initiative for bureaucratic reform. How feasible is democratic reform of the state without bureaucratic reform?

Asif Mohammad Shahan: The bureaucracy is becoming more powerful during the tenure of this government. Already some MPs have spoken about the role of bureaucracy in parliament. There is a significant problem with the performance of Bangladesh’s bureaucracy; however, it is not the main problem. The main issue is the politicisation of bureaucracy. We are not talking about what kind of role bureaucracy should have in our democracy and how to keep it accountable.

The BNP government has not stopped contract-based appointments after taking power. Such appointments create a kind of dissatisfaction within the administration. So far no merit-based system has been established in public administration. In the case of distributing family cards, the government wanted to reduce political interference.

This is undoubtedly a good step. But when complete responsibilities are being handed over to UNOs and other government officials, the bureaucracy is being strengthened without ensuring any accountability. At the same time, no effective measures to ensure accountability regarding bureaucratic performance are being established. Overall, not much can be done about this bureaucracy from the government’s side.

What should civil society do now?

Asif Mohammad Shahan: Civil society must take a strong stance and reflect. Looking back at the 15 and a half years of Awami League rule. When the Awami League government violated civil rights, a large part of civic society remained silent. They stayed silent thinking at least we have a ''liberal government, '' and there is no alternative if this government leaves. It was a false stand bargaining, and it didn’t work out well for civil society either. Because in the post-uprising period, huge questions are raised about the legitimacy of civic society and they have in many cases failed to fulfill their responsibilities.

This bitter experience must serve as a lesson for civil society. Now civil society must keep in mind that if the actions of BNP violate democratic principles and are harmful to democracy, they must raise a strong voice. If this voice leads to a situation where civil society steps back from its duties thinking about who is benefiting and who is being harmed, the consequences will be more dire this time.

Last time, because BNP was in the centre, they have been able to come to power now. In the future, if a similar situation arises, there is no political party in between to take place. The right wing will occupy everything. Hence, an effort must be made to keep BNP within limits to prevent the right.

A clear rise of the right was seen during the interim period. The polarisation and division in our society are more intense than ever. How do you explain this?

Asif Mohammad Shahan: There is a history to this rise of the right; the changes within society have not happened suddenly. We are now witnessing the outcome. Many called the Awami League government a ‘liberal government, ’ but look at their actions, their relationship with the right-forces in 2014-15, they have also stayed in power by compromising with the right wing. Thus, the transformation of society started from then on.

Now the danger is, we have come to a time that can be called political tribalism. We might have ideological differences, that’s normal. You may agree with one view and not with another. But due to the rise of the right wing, a situation has arisen where dissent is not only disregarded but citizens with different views are being seen as inferior and enemies. The mentality has developed that dissent can be treated hostilely if it doesn't match one’s views. In the 18 months of the interim government and 5 months of the current government, we have observed the expansion of this political tribalism.

On one hand, right-wing political tribalism is increasing, and on the other hand, those associated with Awami League are participating in the politics of this tribalism. Awami League has long been involved in the politics of division and attempted to portray a group of people as degenerate. The group that was oppressed back then is now trying to portray another group in an inferior light. As political tribalism increases, it is creating an explosive situation within society.

Political parties’ roles are the reason why this rise of the right wing cannot be effectively curbed. Currently, every political party is engaged in its own political calculations. The expansion of the right wing is politically advantageous for the Jamaat, hence they have no incentive to curb it. Since the NCP is with the Jamaat, the party is not taking a strong stance against any position or action of the Jamaat. A significant portion of BNP's votes come from right-minded voters. As a result, BNP cannot challenge this either. Consequently, the entire political discourse is shifting to the right, and politics is getting stuck in who can attract right-wingers more.

Do you see any way out of this political tribalism?

Asif Mohammad Shahan: Firstly, our political discourse, which has shifted significantly to the right from a centrist stance, needs to be brought back to a centrist position. It can be moved slightly towards the left if needed. The first important place for this change is recognising individual rights. Your opinion may not be to my liking and my opinion may not be to your liking, but for that, neither you nor I should be deemed inferior or subhuman. The state must come forward first to establish personal rights of citizens. This is not a leftist ideology of the state; it is the state’s regular responsibility.

Secondly, civil society has a crucial role to play in social change. We have seen that in the 80s and 90s of the last century, NGOs and various civic organisations worked for rural people. Civil society has to take responsibility to create an environment of tolerance among people and increase political awareness.

Thirdly, an initiative must be taken to fill the vacuum created in the liberal space of Bangladesh’s political spectrum. New political parties and forces have to take initiatives here. However, they are still dispersed. Their first task may be to unite based on a minimum common understanding. Then gaining public trust through continuous political practice ensuring people’s rights and civil liberties.

Thank you

Asif Mohammad Shahan: Thank you too

This interview, originally published in Prothom Alo print and online editions, has been rewritten in English by Rabiul Islam