The history of banning political parties in Bangladesh is quite old. During the early days of the Liberation War, the Awami League was banned, and later on, Jamaat-e-Islami was also prohibited. Subsequently, these parties returned to politics. During the July mass uprising in 2024, when the fall of the Awami League government was inevitable, just a few hours before it happened, Jamaat-e-Islami and their student organization were declared banned under the Anti-Terrorism Act.
The dirty trick played by the Awami League government by banning the political party lasted only a few days. After their oppressive regime's fall, the ban on Jamaat-e-Islami was lifted by the court.
A few months after the interim government, led by Professor Yunus, took charge, a gazette was published on 12 May 2025, prohibiting all activities of the Awami League and its affiliates, one of the country's oldest and leading parties during the Liberation War, in response to demands from several political party leaders. Until the trial of the July massacre, the party's activities were banned. Later, the International Crimes Tribunal's law was amended to commence trials of Awami League leaders and workers, leading to their registration being suspended by the Election Commission, thus excluding them from the thirteenth national election.
Amidst this situation, the ban on the Awami League's activities as a party sparked considerable debate and criticism at home and abroad. Even the United Nations Human Rights Commission, in its investigation report on the horrific massacre of July in 2024, recommended not to ban political party activities.
However, after the interim government issued an executive order banning the party’s activities, the Awami League has become virtually inactive. Had its activities not been suspended, it is difficult to say how effectively the party could have continued to operate. At the same time, no democracy-minded citizen would expect a political party to remain banned in a democratic system.
Though the democratic practice in this country faced major obstacles during the past rule of the Awami League, many expected the elected government to learn from the activities and consequences of the ousted Awami League government and open the path to progressive democratic practice in the country. They hoped to fulfill the aspirations for a change in the state's structural and governance system created by the July mass uprising.
After the BNP-led government took the oath, while passing various ordinances enacted during the interim government as bills in the national parliament, discussions and criticisms nationwide erupted as some critical ordinances were approached with ''caution.'' The opposition's frequent walkouts from parliament occurred. Rumours circulated in the opposition camp that the BNP government was attempting to reinstate the Awami League.
Precisely at this moment, on 8 April, the criticisms were answered by passing the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill in the national parliament, led by Tarique Rahman’s government. By passing the interim government’s ordinance as a bill to enforce the ban on the Awami League and its affiliated organisations, a thorny path was laid for the Awami League’s return to politics.
The bill was proposed by the Home Minister. Standing in parliament, he stated that the bill concerns the amendment related to banning a genocidal terrorist organisation. It amends the previous anti-terrorism law. The leader of the opposition would certainly remember that they, along with their NCP friends, staged a movement. A consensus had emerged in Bangladesh following that movement, leading to their activities being banned under the Anti-Terrorism Act. Consequently, their registration with the Election Commission is also suspended. Subsequent amendments to the ICT Act under this law also incorporated provisions for trying the organisation, following clause 47.
Whether the massacre in the mass uprising can be termed genocide as per international definitions remains a question. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Awami League's activities fall under ''ban'' in the entity for liability of this genocide, then simultaneously, the question arises whether Jamaat-e-Islami’s activities should also be categorised for a ban due to their involvement in horrific killings as an associate of the Pakistani army in 1971. So if anyone questions Jamaat-e-Islami being convicted for ‘genocide’ as a ‘party’ during the Liberation War under the same law, can it be ignored?
Because, immediately after this anti-terrorism (amendment) bill passed in the parliament, the bill to amend the Jatiyo Muktijoddha Council (JAMUKA) was also passed in the national parliament. During the Liberation War, names of the then Muslim League, Jamaat-e-Islami, and Nizam-e-Islami party were retained as associates of the Pakistani invasion forces.
There is widespread dissatisfaction among the majority of people in the country with the misrule of the Awami League government. Due to their ‘authoritarian’ rule, they are exiled from the country, but a portion of this country still supports the party. In the recent national elections, government and opposition leaders approached the party’s voters for assurance and votes. Around 60 per cent of the people voted in the elections. Among those who didn’t vote, some are believed to be supporters of the Awami League.
Due to the authoritarian behaviour of the party's top leadership, how can you ignore those who still like the party and want a purification of the Awami League? Those who have a love for the party, who have been engaged in pure grassroots politics for a long time, can they be kept out of politics at all?
We have seen the use of various weapons to defeat the opponent during the Awami League's tenure, and ignoring the suggestions of newspapers and civil society couldn’t stop authoritarianism. But if this government also strengthens its path towards banning ''political parties,'' that would be unfortunate.
Before coming to power, the BNP often stated they were not in favour of banning political parties, especially through executive orders. But if, after coming to power, they entangle themselves in banning political party activities by passing the law, then it would be disappointing. Can anyone say whether those in power might find themselves on that podium one day, wrapped within this ban?
We want the real murderers of the July massacre to be punished following an investigation. Alongside, taking lessons from the mass uprising, if the Awami League does not reform itself, then not through being ‘banned’, but the party will commit self-destruction. We want everyone to return to democratic liberal political practice. Let the people take responsibility for deciding how they want to ban the party. Instead of demonstrating the power of authority like this, choose the field of voting to decide which party will remain and which will fade away.
#Nadim Mahmud is a researcher at University of California.
*Email: [email protected]
#The opinions are solely of the author.
#This article, originally published in Prothom Alo online edition, has been rewritten in English by Rabiul Islam