The political divide must be kept at a tolerable level

Generally speaking, an election means the opportunity to choose a candidate, competition, and a degree of uncertainty too, since the results depend upon the people. But when the results are known in advance, what kind of election can we term it? Can we dub the election held in Bangladesh on 7 January with any new name?

The 7 January election cannot be viewed in the light of the norm for democratic competitive elections among parties. As the Awami League's main opposition the BNP did not take part in the election, this election was not actually a party-based competitive one. The BNP did not get equal opportunity to compete. Many of their leaders and activists were in jail and they faced innumerable court cases.

In the past too, the political opposition has come under all sorts of repression and suppression during the rule of various governments. The novelty of the January 7 election is that the government took up unprecedented strategies and tactics to make it appear competitive. Candidates of the Awami League who were not given party nomination were given the opportunity to compete as independent candidates with the ‘boat’ candidates in the election. Jatiya Party competed in the election as a government-backed party.

Earlier, in the seventies and eighties during the military rule we had seen a lot of election engineering. The military rulers used to decide who would win, who would lose, who would form the opposition. The intelligence agencies were active in making and breaking parties. But such engineering was not so overt.

This time the bargaining and negotiations, all the engineering and strategies were quite blatant and open. There were no doubts regarding the election results, particularly which party would be going to power. The candidates contesting against the Awami League all campaigned as Awami League followers or candidates backed by the Awami League. The entire election process was staged.

I cannot find any appropriate name for this election, but various international agencies clearly stated that this election process had not been democratic. There is no reason to think that the citizens of the country regard this election as democratic either.

The parliament that has been formed through the 7 January election is, in effect, a one-party one. Even if the questionable voter turnout rate given by the election commission is accepted, the majority of the people did not vote. How far has Westminster or parliamentary democracy, as we conceive it, been upheld?

If a party comes to power time and again as the major elected party through an election acceptable to all, and forms the government, that is not a problem. In India, the Congress won the election consecutively for 20 years since1947 and formed the government accordingly. To date, the Congress has won the election 10 times and formed the government. Questions were not raised about the credibility of these elections in India. The problem in our country is that three consecutive elections, in 2014, 2018 and 2024, have not been acceptable to all.

Questions have been raised regarding the election process and results. If democracy is to survive in this country, first the political parties’ trust in the election process must be restored. Our neighbours in South Asia – India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, the Maldives – all have regular elections. There is sharp competition among the parties, vitriol and bitterness, but all have faith in the election system. They are taking part in the elections. They are accepting the election results. We are the only country that, even 52 years after independence, have failed to establish a credible election system.

As a result of the Awami League’s movement in 1996 all political parties accepted the system of elections under a non-partisan caretaker government. Everyone participated in such elections for three consecutive terms. The parties who lost raised questions concerning the election, but eventually accepted the results. Power changed hands every time. Unfortunately, after the non-partisan caretaker government system was abolished in 2011, we have been unable to come up with an election system that is acceptable to all political parties. All the elections after that have been completely under the control of the ruling party.

With no competition and with the results being pre-determined, our people are gradually losing interest in casting their votes. The voter turnout this time remains questionable. Even if the official turnout is accepted, around 60 per cent of the people didn’t vote. As long as we cannot hold an election acceptable to all, we will not be able to fulfill the minimum conditions of democracy. We will not be recognized as a democratic country in the international arena.

Even if the results were known from beforehand, a new government has been installed by means of the 7 January election and a cabinet has been formed. There are discussions on the challenges that lie ahead for this government. What challenges will the government face in the political arena? Are there actually any challenges?

Retaining power after having consecutively won three controversial elections, the government may well feel that it can use the state machinery, party power and various political ploys and tactics to tackle all challenges of the political opposition in the future. For many years we have been discussing and debating a number of political problems which have remained unresolved. Our democratic system and rule of law are on a steady decline. The divide in our society and politics is widening. A handful of individuals and groups are exerting their vested influence on the government’s policy making and implementation process. All these problems pose serious challenges to the government.

The government’s various narratives regarding this election and the people’s experience on the ground, have no similarity. The government says the election has been fair; democracy has been consolidated. But is this narrative acceptable to the people? On the contrary, this difference between the government narrative and the reality is creating a crisis of confidence in the country that is steadily widening the gap between the government and the people.

The first and foremost challenge before the government is to restore public confidence in their commitment to democracy. And in order to regain this confidence, first, all controversies regarding the election process must be settled. Dialogue must be held with all major political forces of the country to come up with an election system that is acceptable to all. Over the past 15 years the political parties could not reach any consensus over an election-time government. The people were unable to take part in a genuinely competitive election. As the elections have been controversial, Bangladesh’s  democracy has been questioned in global circles. Political stability will not be restored as long as the elections remain controversial.

The second challenge before this government is, how to identify the weakness and shortcomings in their work in the future. In a democratic system, generally speaking, it is the opposition in parliament, the media and civil society who criticise the government’s policies and discuss alternatives. They highlight the shortcomings of the government. But for many years now the opposition in our parliament has not played any effective role. Nor is there any opposition per se in the present parliament. They are all followers or supporters of the government.

In the absence of an effective opposition, our media, think-tanks and civil society have been discussing and criticizing the government’s performance. They have tried to hold the government accountable. But the media and civil society are gradually being intimidated by various laws and pressures from the government. When the media and civil society organizations publish reports identifying various problems based on facts and figures, rather than resolving the problems, the government has tended to reject such reports and called them ill-motivated.

If there is no space to criticise the government without fear then the government will not be able to hear diverse views. Policy making and implementation based on one-sided information and discussions will not ultimately bring anything good for the government. So another task for the government will be to abolish various laws that limit freedom of expression and build up an environment for open discussion and debate.

The third challenge before our government will be to keep the political divide at a tolerable level so that those on either side of the divide can coexist in peace rather than violence, so that they can resolve contested issues through a process of dialogue.

There is nothing impossible in politics. Our politicians often say that politics is no longer in their hands. Politics has passed into the hands of businessmen and bureaucrats. It is now the responsibility of the politicians to bring politics back on track.

The government took up the strategy to allow its own party people to contest in the election as independent candidates against the party-nominated candidates in order to give the polls a semblance of competition and participation. Has this been helpful for the party’s unity and solidarity? How has this election impacted Awami League as a party?

For quite some time we have observed that the Awami League is being exposed to inner rifts among the various factions. The BNP also faces this problem. In many democratic countries of the world there is rivalry and competition among the aspiring leaders of a party. These contestations are generally settled by means of election within the party. This does not happen in our country. The leaders and office bearers of various posts within the party are selected by the top level of party leadership.

In the January 7 election the Awami League gave opportunity to its party members to contest as independent candidates against the candidates nominated by the party. But we see that those who were defeated, are not accepting the results. They claim that there was rigging, that force was used to defeat them. Actually the unity and solidarity of the Awami League has long been dependent on the party chief. The party leaders and activists only accept her decisions. There is no other decision making system to resolve internal party conflicts.

Though the opportunity was created for the Awami League members to contest as independent candidates in order to increase the rate of voting and create an atmosphere of competition in the polls, this has also revealed certain weaknesses within the Awami League. First, 59 independent Awami League candidates defeated party-nominated candidates in the election, proving that in around one fifth of the seats party leadership did not accurately assess the popularity of the grassroots leaders.

Second, this election again highlighted the challenge of bringing the inner rifts and conflicts of the Awami League under party discipline. I do not know whether the Awami League chief will now initiate open elections within the party and its various affiliated organizations to fill the various party positions. Elections within the party will be regarded as a democratic process. But there will be strong contestation within the party. The party chief’s challenge still remains to devise a system whereby internal strife can be peacefully resolved. Till now, all decisions and resolutions of inner party conflict are dependent on the party leadership and not a system.

Prior to the election the country’s politics was proceeding in a certain context. Circumstances have changed after the election. What are the changes?

Before the election when the BNP was holding mass rallies, Western countries were calling for inclusive, peaceful and fair elections, and talking about visa and labour policies and so on, it seemed as if there was a certain degree of pressure on the government to take the initiative to ensure an election where all political parties would participate. But the government overcame all domestic and external pressures and managed to hold the election according to its own preferences. The cabinet has been formed. For the time being it seems the government has emerged victorious. However, while it may have been possible to hold on to state power through this election, the fairness of the election process still remains questionable at home and abroad. The government still faces the challenge of coming up with an election system which will be acceptable to all.

What can the major political opposition party of the country, BNP, do in the days to come? Will they be rendered even more powerless? BNP claims the people responded to their call to boycott the election. Now what can the party do?

After thousands of its leaders and activists have been placed in jail and its failure to create a mass uprising, it may seem that the BNP has been rendered impotent. But there is no reason to think that the party is weak and has no support base. After all it has managed to hold on to its huge number of leaders, activists and supporters even though the party has been out of power for 18 years. When the BNP was holding peaceful public rallies before the election, the gatherings were massive. Admittedly, the size of the gathering does not always indicate the popularity of a party. The number of actual supporters of a party can only be accurately determined through an impartial election where all the political parties will take part. We also need to remember that popular support for a party may vary from one election to another.

One cannot say that the people responded massively to BNP’s call to boycott the election. A large number of the people had lost interest in voting since the results were pre-determined.

There are many challenges facing the BNP today. After being out of power for so long and being subject to suppression and repression, keeping up the morale of the party leaders and activists to carry on the struggle is a major challenge for the BNP.

Since 2014, the government has been calling the BNP a terrorist party. Last year through organization of peaceful rallies the BNP tried to prove that it was not a terrorist party. But after the 28 October violence and later the arson on buses and trains the government once again has been branding the BNP as a terrorist party. The BNP has protested against this, saying that they had not been involved with this violence. Now one of the priority tasks of the BNP will be to produce a fact-based report to demonstrate that the party had nothing to do with the violence of 28 October and later.

Another task for the BNP will be to win people’s confidence that when they come to power, they will practice democratic norms and will strive to improve the quality of democracy. The BNP has long been focusing on one issue – the election. They have been saying that the ruling party is autocratic and that if the BNP comes to power they will restore democracy in the country.

But the BNP has been in power twice since 1990 and the party did not behave democratically at the time. The BNP too has suppressed and oppressed the Awami League. The grenade attack on the Awami League public meeting on 21 August 2004 took place during the BNP’s rule. Senior Awami League leaders were killed and injured during the attack. The BNP also had tried to manipulate election and the caretaker government system. They too had tried to suppress the voice of the media and civil society.

Now if the BNP aspires to mobilize public support for a democratic movement, it must first win the confidence of the people that the party will behave democratically in the future. It will not do to merely carry on with a negative agenda of toppling the government. The BNP needs to go to the people with a positive agenda spelling out how they will institutionalize democracy, ensure good governance, promote economic development, and so on. Above all, the party must overcome its leadership conflicts, and organisational weaknesses. The BNP needs to attract the young generation.

Do you foresee the government taking fresh repressive action against BNP? There has been talk of BNP being banned. Do you think the government will go that far? What would the fallout be on the country’s politics then?

Several ministers and leaders of the Awami League have called the BNP a terrorist party, but that does not mean that the government will ban the party. The regime will want to weaken the BNP. Banning the BNP would draw flak from home and abroad and the government would not benefit. The government hasn’t even banned the Jamaat-e-Islami; it has been largely kept inactive.

What is the future of the political parties outside of BNP who are not in parliament?

The smaller parties in our country who have boycotted the election do not have much public support. Since 1990, the people have got accustomed to election politics. They are aware that to come to power through an election, there is need for huge sums of money, large numbers of party workers and muscle power. Small parties with no money, worker base or muscle power, cannot expect to mobilize much public support in the elections or to join them in mass movements. However, I cannot say how much public support the parties with Islamic ideology have. The Islamist parties can generate large crowds on various issues. Many observers believe that if democratic space shrinks and if electoral politics is not kept open to all, then the Islamist parties will broaden their influence.

There has been talk from many quarters about reaching a political arrangement in order to overcome the prevailing situation. After coming to power and forming a more or less one-party government, will the government be at all interested in reaching for a political settlement? How realistic would it be to expect a political settlement?

The regime may be thinking that it has once again won the political game for the time being. The BNP does not have the strength to bring about a mass uprising. The various powerful lobbies of the country, or even the mass of the people, are not registering dissatisfaction with the status quo. But on its own accord if the government takes the initiative for dialogue with the BNP and the other opposition forces to resolve the various challenges faced by the country, this would display their political statesmanship.

Thank you.

Thank you too.