Does the legitimacy of the government depend solely on mobs?

If we consider the history of the last 75 years, we will see that the people of this country have had the scope of major change at least four times, including 2024. In 1947, 1971 and 1990—each time we lost the opportunity. Seven months have passed since the July uprising. In terms of the overall situation, how much do you think our political parties and the interim government have been able to learn from history?

Asif Mohammad Shahan: The first question is, who are the actors here? If we consider the interim government as the first actor, then the government's job is to implement the hopes and aspirations of the July uprising. The second actor is the political parties. Without their help or opinion, the government cannot implement those hopes and aspirations. There is a major problem here.

What the political parties want and how much they want is not clear. We don’t see any consensus on the issue of reforms yet. Instead, the discussion is being framed in a binary of election versus reform. In this case, we may blame the political parties, but it is natural for them to want to come to power. Now, the interim government is responsible for controlling this desire and forging understanding, but they are not fully able to do so.

The extent to which reforms will happen depends on how well the interim government performs its responsibilities. If they successfully ensure people’s safety, stop mob violence, and stabilise the economy, the government would have more time for reforms, and discussions on their logic would also increase. But as the government is showing more failure in these areas, people are thinking that there’s no need for anything else and that the elections should take place now. The political parties are benefiting from this.

In short, the political parties are acting according to their expectations, and the interim government is unable to properly perform the responsibilities entrusted with them. From both of these aspects, I think we have fallen into a lot of uncertainty. If I talk about learning from history, neither the political parties nor the interim government is displaying intelligence.

After seven months of the government’s tenure, we are seeing an increase in crimes like robbery, kidnapping, theft, rape, and harassment of women. People are feeling insecure. How much is the government taking into account the deterioration of law and order?

Asif Mohammad Shahan: The legitimacy of the interim government did not come through elections. It is a post-uprising government. The more the government can align with the hopes and aspirations of the people, the more its legitimacy will increase. This increased legitimacy is important because if the law and order situation worsens, strong measures will need to be taken to control crime. When the government has more legitimacy, people will accept these measures in one way. But if the legitimacy decreases, the more hesitant the government will be to act, and the law and order situation will go further out of control. The big question is whether the government is falling into such a trap.

Over the past 15-16 years, given the way the Awami League ran the government, using the police, the bureaucracy and judiciary for political purposes, is the government facing problems when trying to work with these institutions now?

Asif Mohammad Shahan: We talk about the police, bureaucracy, and judiciary, but there’s another important issue. In political science, we say every society is inherently violent. But why don’t societies descend into violence? The main reason is that there ae some institutions within those societies. By institutions here, I don’t mean the police or such organisations. In every society, there is an informal understanding of how people should be treated and where boundaries should be drawn. Over the last 15-16 years, leaving aside the state institutions, even these social institutions have been severely damaged.

When political parties interfere in every part of society, the natural strength of society is destroyed, and political power takes over. As a result, the society’s ability to prevent violence is ruined. But how was society still somewhat non-violent? Because state institutions engaged in brutal repression. But now, after the 5 August, we see that the law enforcement’s power to suppress has diminished.

It’s become clear to the people that they were doing this unlawfully. Whether we talk about the police or the bureaucracy, they had all become parts of political parties. As a result, the neutrality framework of the police and administration has been destroyed, and the whole society has become fragile.

But still, the question remains. What actions has the government taken to fix these institutions in its seven months? We don’t see any clear stance from the government. For example, the home ministry itself has objected to the formation of an independent police commission. The way we’ve controlled police recruitment, promotions, and how the police will behave, hasn’t worked. The path to get out of that is also being blocked.

Why can’t the government take a firm stance on issues like the destruction of shrines, banning cultural events, mob violence and abuse of women in the streets?

Asif Mohammad Shahan: The government has not been able to take a clear stance on controlling mob violence. Either the government doesn’t understand, or it is unable to take a strong position against this small quarter that doesn't reflect the hopes, aspirations, and cultural values of the our population. Is the government thinking that if they take action against the mobs, their legitimacy will decrease? But is the government’s legitimacy or acceptability solely dependent on this one group? The government has been repeatedly reassured from different sources that these actions are being carried out by a small group. Still, the government hasn’t been able to act.

The government should have made one thing clear. People may have different views on religious, gender or cultural expressions. Someone may not agree with them, but no one has the right to attack others. The state’s responsibility is to protect everyone. The government should not allow anyone to cross this red line.

Whenever such questions are asked to the government, they ask. where will you find such a progressive advisory council? But progressiveness is not defined by someone’s identity; it depends on what they are doing. I often wonder if the members of the advisory council think about their legacy. When the government leaves, if it’s found that during its tenure various ethnic and religious groups were attacked and their security was undermined, but the government did not take a strong stance, will that be good for their legacy?

One of the main foundations of our mainstream parties is extortion, tender manipulation, and taking commissions. In the seven months, we’ve seen that one party has simply replaced another in this regard. Do you see any signs that the political parties will get out of this culture?

Asif Mohammad Shahan: If there is no incentive to change the way political parties operate, then why would they change? When the issue of reform is discussed, many say we need to improve people's character. Will that happen automatically? When leaders and workers see that extortion has no accountability and those who extort are rewarded for contributing to the party fund, why wouldn’t they do it?

So, how will political culture change? This is where the question of reform comes in. There needs to be a change in the rules and regulations governing political party management. Some areas of the Representation of the People Order (RPO) need legal reforms. Transparency in political funding needs to be ensured. Proposals for such reforms have been included in the Election Reform Commission’s report. But the more important issue is whether the political parties are following these, and creating an institutional base to ensure they do. Real change needs to come at the institutional level.

Once an institution is established, it takes time to build a foundation in society. From that, rules and values are created. If political parties continue with extortion and tender manipulation, and the election commission takes action against this or reflects this in election results, only then will political parties move away from this culture.

There are questions about the sources of funding for new political party as well...

Asif Mohammad Shahan: Elections are a competition. When a new political party sees that it wants to do good work but is lagging in the electoral race while those engaging in extortion are advancing, what is their incentive? That’s why we need to create a level playing field not just for voters but also for political parties. We often blame new parties, expecting too much from them. If a new party asks, “We need to survive in this competition,” we must come up with an answer for them.

In many countries, political parties receive funding for elections from the government. We could consider this too. Money is a part of elections everywhere. In the case of Citizens United VS Federal Election Commission in the United States, it is stated that money is equal to free speech. This means that as much money as possible can be spent in an election. But where’s the difference? The amount of money going into political party funds or Congressmen and Senators’ funds is visible to everyone. Some civil society organisations follow this. When a vote takes place in the legislature, the discussions take place why a legislator is voting or not voting. Therefore, politicians will only change their behavior if there is a consequence for their actions.

A consensus commission has been formed. Does the discussion on reforms now seem secondary?

Asif Mohammad Shahan: We’ve framed the issue of reforms in terms of reform versus elections. But no one is saying that reforms are needed to hold the election. Now, the question is, what is the definition of democracy? Elections are essential for democracy. Holding elections means the country is on the democratic path. But elections alone do not make a country democratic. If we want to move towards liberal democracy, we need to build institutions and ensure public participation in policy-making. Without that, we won’t have a democratic state.

We don’t just want the next election to be conducted properly. We want every election to be conducted properly. So, is it enough to bring back the caretaker government system? After the introduction of the caretaker government in 1996, we saw in 2001 how the constitution was amended to weaken it, and later it was abolished through another amendment. These were all done through legal means.

Now, if elections are to be held, can we be sure of the neutrality of the police and administration? Can we be sure that those who come to power in the next election won’t try to centralise power? Why are we bringing up the debate on election versus reform without ensuring these things? Reform is necessary for the elections. Reforms are needed in the police, administration, and to create a system that can resist the centralisation of power after elections.

The debate on reform for the election needs everyone’s attention. Someone must give this message. It can come from the consensus commission or from the government. But the government says, reforms will happen if you want them; if not, they won’t." This can’t be a stance. We need to move away from defensive statements and provide a strong one.
If this continues, the best we can do is to go back to 1991. Following the path of 1991, we’ve reached 2024. If we go back to 1991 in 2025, what’s the guarantee that the same thing won’t happen again in 2035-2040? So, we are not learning the lessons of history.

There are conflicting positions on whether the national elections or the local government elections should be held first. What do you think? Which election should be held first, and why?

Asif Mohammad Shahan: After 5 August, a huge void has been created in local government. People aren’t receiving services. The administration is trying to provide these services, but those in the administration already have other responsibilities. It’s hard for them to take on this extra responsibility. Do they even know the people they’re serving, their troubles and suffering? That’s a problem. People go to the local member for services because they know them. They can’t imagine going to the UNO or a bureaucrat because they fear them, hesitate, and the time spent on this could cost them financially. A huge section of the population depends on local government for social safety net programmes. In this regard, it would be better if local government elections were held first.

The Election Reform Commission conducted a nationwide survey. One of the questions asked was whether people preferred local government elections to be held first. 65 per cent of the people said they wanted local government elections to be held first. Now, when we hear political parties saying that the people don't want local government elections first, which people are they referring to? The commission followed a specific methodology for the survey. If the results of that survey are to be dismissed, strong arguments should be provided.

If local government elections are to be held, the government must demonstrate its competence. No matter how many symbols are removed, political parties will still have their preferred candidates. The big question is whether the government has the ability to properly handle the conflicts and disputes that may arise among these candidates.

Can elections be held at the city corporation level, even if not at the union or upazila level?

Asif Mohammad Shahan: The election commission could indeed conduct a city corporation election as a test case. There are nearly 4,500 unions and about 495 upazilas. Holding elections on such a large scale is difficult. A city corporation election could serve as a test for the government to identify the challenges it faces and areas where its capacity needs to be improved.

We've seen in the past that the political party in power takes control of local government as well. Isn't this thought influencing BNP’s urge to hold local government elections after the national elections?

Asif Mohammad Shahan: If the government was functioning properly, would the BNP be in such a strong position regarding local government elections? Why does the BNP want the local government elections later? Because they want to maintain control over the local government. Others want them earlier because they believe the current situation will give them the best outcome. Everyone is moving forward from their own self-interest. The interim government could have made a decision based on the interests of the people, but they are not. There is doubt within the government about its scope and capacity. The government must have a vision.

How do you view the potential of the new political party by students?

Asif Mohammad Shahan: I see the new political party by students in a very positive light. If we look at the political spectrum, BNP is the most influential party at the moment. BNP is a relatively centrist party with a slight tilt to the right. To its right, there's Jamaat-e-Islami. Further right, there’s Hefazat-e-Islam and others. On the left, there are the communist parties. We used to see the Awami League as a centrist party with a slight lean to the left. The political future of the Awami League is uncertain. We don't even know if the party will participate in the elections. The Awami League is absent, the leftist parties are unstable, and there are some secular-liberal votes as well. As a result, a huge space remains vacant.
In the upcoming election, either these voices will have no representation, or if BNP shifts slightly to the left, these votes might go to the BNP. If BNP shifts left, the centrist space in the middle will be vacant. This creates an opportunity for a new political position for student-led parties. Another alternative for the students would be to capture the middle votes leaning to the left. However, it doesn’t seem like they will head in that direction. In the post-uprising political trajectory, there is a good chance for an alternative political party.

Thank you.

Asif Mohammad Shahan: Thank you too.