If there is no negotiation, street politics will return

It has been over eight months since the interim government took office. There has been much discussion about reforms. How much progress do you see in this regard?

Mirza Hasan: There has been no significant progress in terms of reforms. However, important reform commissions have submitted their reports. Now we at least know what kinds of reforms are needed. These topics have come to the table, and various parties are sharing their opinions. The Consensus Commission is holding dialogues with political parties.

The BNP wants to play a decisive role in the reforms. Perhaps this is because they believe they will form the next government. Since the proposed reforms aim to place the ruling party under stricter checks and balances, the BNP doesn’t seem to favour them. In my view, they are not seeking any fundamental change to the previous system of governance. Yet, it was the demand to change that old structure, which reflected the spirit of this mass uprising.

Some reforms require consensus among the political parties, while others could be implemented through administrative orders. Is the interim government executing those administrative reforms, or is there a noticeable lack of action?

Mirza Hasan: I think the government assumes that political parties will carry out the major reforms after the elections. Some work is being done in areas like the economy and the banking sector. The government has also taken some steps against corruption and money laundering. But, many reforms that could have been done through administrative orders are not being implemented—that must be acknowledged.

Some people say the government has fallen into the clutches of the bureaucracy. In police reform, for example, we saw major obstacles coming from the home ministry. What is your opinion?

Mirza Hasan: I am not sure if there is a political agenda behind it. But we all know about the inter-cadre conflicts in police reform. One thing is clear: the influence of the administrative cadre affected the Police Reform Commission too. In 2007–08, there was a big push for police reform, and the administrative cadre opposed it then as well. The police wanted to be free from administrative control and demanded an independent police commission. They wanted freedom from both political and bureaucratic interference.

Being used for political purposes has been most damaging for the police. That’s why they want an independent commission again. But the reform commission’s recommendation was that more examinations are needed. That’s a very odd justification—after all, these experts were appointed for their expertise.

What’s most necessary is to transition from a “regime police” to a democratic police—and to reform police operations at the local level. Ordinary people may not directly feel the authoritarian behaviour of the prime minister, but they encounter the authoritarian behaviour of the local police officers regularly. That’s why local citizen oversight committees must be formed to ensure checks and balances. Without that, we cannot build democratic policing.

Police and local government reform are not part of the Consensus Commission’s agenda. Does that mean political consensus is not needed for these two areas?

Mirza Hasan: Those who formed the reform commissions seem to believe that reform means internal reform of political parties and establishing checks and balances within the government. That idea is particularly evident in the recommendations from the Constitution and Election Reform Commissions.

In Bangladesh, the Prime Minister holds an extraordinary amount of power. So, the commissions have made various recommendations to reduce that power and introduce checks and balances. They seem to assume that if elections, Parliament, and the executive branch function properly, democracy will naturally follow. That might be true to an extent. If these reforms are implemented, it will become much harder to impose authoritarian rule in the future. But true democracy cannot be achieved through these measures alone.

Just as police and local government reforms are not on the agenda, issues like gender, health, and education also are not being treated as core democratic issues. Rights and accountability in these sectors are not being considered part of the democratic structure. The rights of workers inside and outside factories are not seen as democratic issues by the elites. These are treated as “specialised” topics. But in truth, they are essential to achieving real democracy.

What should be done to establish the form of democracy you are talking about?

Mirza Hasan: Citizens must form their own organisations—businesspeople, workers, farmers, women, and indigenous groups from all sectors of society. Their representatives should be sent to the upper house of Parliament. Only then can we go beyond electoral democracy.

Local citizen councils should also be formed and given constitutional legitimacy. These councils should operate under national commissions and be held accountable. That way, checks and balances can be ensured at both national and local levels.

Bangladesh has Ward Committees, but their power is extremely limited. Union Council chairmen and members ignore them because they lack legal authority. Just as ruling parties dominate Parliament, they also capture these local ward committees. So they need a legal foundation. Unfortunately, these issues haven’t even come up in discussions, and the reform commission reports don’t mention them.

The BNP, Jamaat-e-Islami, and the newly formed National Citizen Party (NCP) seem to disagree on the proposed reforms. If political parties can’t reach a consensus, will any reform actually take place?

Mirza Hasan: People do not want the same old politics. They have made it clear—they do not want another dictatorship, nor do they want politicians to completely ignore public interest once in power. Everyone agrees that something must change.

That something is reflected in the reform commission reports. I believe all political parties should publicly present their reform agendas. People will consider those before voting.

For a long time, the main political players in Bangladesh have been the Awami League and the BNP. This time, one of them is absent. Jamaat-e-Islami is not a major party, but they are trying to regain strength. Now we are seeing the National Citizen Party (NCP) emerge. I think the government will try to negotiate with smaller parties like the NCP and Jamaat over reforms. Their main rival is the BNP, which will likely attempt to divide the other parties. Whether they will succeed remains uncertain.

This current government is not a caretaker government—it’s a post-uprising government. Those who led the uprising also formed the NCP. Most of the reform proposals have come from the government itself. So the government is a party in this process. They have told political parties that if everyone agrees, they will move forward accordingly. So far, we have not seen signs of such consensus.

The BNP has said clearly that elected political parties should carry out the reforms, not the interim government. They can say that because in our political culture, democracy is equated solely with elections—nothing beyond that.

BNP has also warned that if dialogue fails, they will take to the streets. They want a resolution through street power. But their opponents—NCP, Jamaat, and the current government—are not weak either. So we might see a power balance lead to a resolution. What that resolution will be, it is hard to say. One positive thing: the military has said they had bitter experiences in politics and want to remain neutral.

Prothom Alo: BNP has repeatedly claimed the interim government is not neutral. Recently, NCP convenor Md Nahid Islam said the administration favours BNP, and elections under them would not be fair. How do you view these statements?

Mirza Hasan: Politics has its fair share of rhetoric. I see Nahid Islam’s statement as part of that rhetoric. BNP indeed has influence in many parts of the government and administration. But Nahid’s portrayal makes it sound like BNP is now the “king’s party.”

Just as BNP once called the NCP the “king’s party,” the NCP is now trying to flip that narrative. They are attempting to create rhetorical balance in political messaging. They are trying to show the public that the current government will not just install the NCP in power.

The Awami League was accused of establishing one-party rule. Many of its leaders have been charged with crimes against humanity. At the same time, it has a large support base. There are differing views on whether the party should be allowed to contest in elections. What is your stance?

Mirza Hasan: Many of us are saying contradictory things. On the one hand, we want top Awami League leaders to be tried; on the other, we talk about allowing the party into elections. From a policy standpoint, I do not support banning any political party. These issues should be resolved politically.

If trials had been completed, we would know which Awami League leaders are ineligible for elections. If someone outside the Sheikh Hasina family tried to lead the Awami League in an election, I think internal resistance would block it. Their support base might not accept such leadership. I do not think other parties will fight hard to include Awami League in elections either. The BNP would likely prefer to go to elections without them. So I do not think it’s time to open that discussion yet.

Recently, there has been some discussion about an interim government staying in power for five years. Some individuals, inside and outside the government, have commented on this. How do you view the issue?

Mirza Hasan: Actually, when people are economically comfortable, they do not pay much attention to other issues. In such times, they prefer that the current government remains in place. Besides, people are not particularly satisfied with the performance of the two major parties—Awami League and BNP. During Ramadan, we saw that the prices of essential goods were relatively stable. During Eid, people were able to travel to and from home smoothly. Altogether, this created a sense of contentment among the public. That’s probably why some people are making remarks about the interim government staying in power for five years.

Recently, The New York Times published a report expressing concern about the rise of extremism in Bangladesh. How do you see this issue?

Mirza Hasan: The New York Times report is not entirely false, but it did seem somewhat one-sided. After a mass uprising, the emergence of various types of forces is natural. The government has shortcomings and lacks capacity in controlling extremist groups, and it is important to criticise those weaknesses. However, it is not the case that the government is actively fueling extremism.

We need to be cautious about the narrative that the government supports extremists. We have seen how Indian media have often spread misinformation about such matters in Bangladesh. We need to keep that political context in mind.

To conclude, we would like to hear your final thoughts on the overall political situation.

Mirza Hasan: I have doubts about whether a consensus will be reached through dialogue. As a result, the situation may once again shift toward street politics or movements to occupy the streets. In short, we are in a state of uncertainty.