During Sheikh Hasina’s authoritarian rule, the democracy-loving people of the country wanted a free, fair and credible election. People rightly understood that by winning elections through manipulation and remaining in power, Sheikh Hasina had gradually turned Bangladesh into a mafia state.
Since there were effectively no real elections in the country, the prevailing view was that holding an election alone would put us back on the path to democracy. That statement is a half-truth, not the whole truth. But within a mafia-style system, there was no scope to discuss why it was only a half-truth. Now we will have that discussion. It is an extremely important discussion.
After a long time, Bangladesh is finally seeing a festive election. An election is supposed to mean a free, fair, participatory and credible vote. Yet in a country like ours, where “Hasina-style” elections have been the norm, there has been a tendency to attach these qualifiers to the very idea of an election.
In this election, a truly unprecedented development has taken place in Bangladesh, one that deserves serious consideration. In fact, this trend could become a defining factor in the country’s future politics. Although Islamist parties have long existed in Bangladesh’s political landscape, they typically contested elections through limited seat-sharing arrangements with BNP or Awami League, or occasionally made their presence felt through political programmes.
But for the first time, they have emerged as one of the two contenders for state power. Although the Jamaat-led alliance has included a few parties such as the National Citizen Party (NCP), AB Party, and LDP in an effort to move away from being labeled purely as an Islamist identity-based bloc, their number of seats is very small. Therefore, the 11-party alliance led by Jamaat remains, in essence, an Islamist identity-based political coalition.
Setting aside the question of how well this Islamist identity-based alliance will perform in the election, or whether it will be able to create any real competition at all, it can still be said that, for the first time since independence, they have established themselves as a significant political alliance in the country.
Awami League’s absence has also played a role in this alliance’s rise to prominence; had the Awami League taken part in the election, it would likely have been the BNP’s principal rival. After Sheikh Hasina’s fall, there was justified public anger against the Awami League. Capitalizing on that sentiment, Jamaat, the National Citizen Party (NCP), and other Islamist parties, through their movement, were unable to secure a complete ban on the Awami League, but they did succeed in getting its political activities prohibited, effectively removing it from the electoral field.
Although Jamaat and a couple of other parties in the alliance, including the NCP, have released their own manifestos, these should be considered insignificant in the broader context. If the alliance wins the election, the state will be governed according to Jamaat’s ideological framework.
A look at Jamaat’s manifesto shows that it resembles that of another centre-right political party. Despite having “Islamic” in its name, and despite a constitution that reads more like that of a religious organization than a political party, its manifesto contains no substantive discussion of Islam, particularly of Shariah.
The party’s manifesto mentions taking the initiative to enact a separate Muslim Personal Law for Muslims in line with Islamic Shariah (which, in practice, already exists under a different name), and adopting Shariah-based welfare measures for farmers. Beyond this, there is little in the manifesto to indicate that the party adheres to an Islamic ideological framework. Recently, the khatib of Baitul Mukarram Mosque also noted this point in a khutbah.
At first glance, this could have been praised as a positive trend. But the reality is not so simple. The party holds deeply conservative views; the ameer himself has made statements regarding whether a woman can serve as Jamaat’s ameer. According to its constitution, not only can a non-Muslim not become ameer, they cannot even become a member (rukn) of the party.
Moreover, leaders at various levels of the party, including parliamentary candidates, have said that if they come to power, they will establish Islamic Shariah. The Jamaat ameer himself has not dismissed such a possibility. When asked similar questions in interviews with foreign media outlets, he has said that if the people want it, then it will happen. Interestingly, if they truly wished to demonstrate that the people want it, they could have made this the number one point in their manifesto, but they did not. I discussed the reasons behind this kind of duplicity in an earlier column.
A recent report by BBC News India showed that Gazi Nazrul Islam, the Jamaat candidate from Satkhira-4, considered a Jamaat stronghold, spoke of running a country that is 90 per cent Muslim on the basis of “Islamic law.” In that context, he also raised the issue of women observing hijab and not going outside without a mahram (a male relative whom they are forbidden to marry). (https://youtu.be/fd9_rqOfZIw?si=5-LnJJBeeSZT3CUi)
Based on circumstantial evidence, it can reasonably be said that such a mindset exists within the party, even up to its highest levels. If this alliance comes to power, it is quite certain that, even if not formally, this country will unofficially fall under a regime of moral policing.
During the tenure of the interim government, religious conservatism (and in some cases extremism) has already become more active in the country. It requires only common sense to understand that if the Jamaat-led alliance comes to power, this will intensify significantly. We should also remember that, judging by their public statements, there are political parties within this alliance that are even more hardline than Jamaat.
Casting a vote out of anger at the conduct of a party’s leaders and activists, or voting based on a personal preference for a local candidate, could at the national level bring right-wing identity-based political forces to power, or give them a strong foothold by
The notion that a good election will automatically bring about liberal democracy and institutionalise it is, in fact, only a half-truth. Just as the world witnessed in the pre–Second World War era, and is witnessing again today, democracy is steadily eroding (democratic backsliding) across the globe on the basis of identity-driven (religious, racial, linguistic, etc.) populist politics. Influential books such as How Democracies Die and How to Save a Constitutional Democracy have highlighted this trend, explored its causes, and discussed possible remedies.
Clear examples of this global trend can be found right next door to us, and similar patterns are spreading across America and Europe. As our voters head to the polls, they would do well to keep this trend in mind. Voters must remember that democracy does not necessarily mean liberalism; in many countries today, elections themselves are producing “illiberal democracies,” which are, in effect, a form of fascism.
Voters will surely understand that casting a vote out of anger at the conduct of a party’s leaders and activists, or voting based on a personal preference for a local candidate, could at the national level bring right-wing identity-based political forces to power, or give them a strong foothold by enabling them to win a significant number of seats. This would expose the state to grave dangers both domestically and internationally.
After Sheikh Hasina’s fall, while continuing the discourse against fascism, voters must also remain vigilant against the rise of a new fascism. Responding to the slogan “You’ve seen many in power, now give us a chance” without reflection could carry consequences that are not difficult to imagine.
* Zahed ur Rahman is a university teacher and political analyst.
* The views expressed here are the author’s own.