It became clear to me, at least, on Wednesday, 20 November, that the current interim government is not moving toward banning Awami League. On that day, during a meeting of the advisory council, it was decided that under the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, no party or organisation could be held accountable or tried for crimes against humanity. This was despite the fact that the version of the law brought before the advisory council included provisions for trying parties accused of crimes against humanity. It goes without saying that in trying to maintain illegal power in Bangladesh, Awami League, as a party, committed crimes against humanity.
Although there are legal avenues under two other laws to take action against the Awami League, I personally believe that by removing the provision to try organisations or parties under the ICT law, the government essentially signaled in November that they were not moving toward banning the Awami League. A few days earlier, the chief adviser had finally stated the government's position against banning the Awami League during a meeting with representatives from the International Crisis Group.
The chief adviser had made similar statements before, but this time, two events occurred immediately afterward that dramatically shifted the situation. Hasnat Abdullah, the chief organiser (South Region) of the National Citizen Party (NCP), revealed on a Facebook post that during a meeting at a cantonment, some of their members were asked to support the creation of a ‘refined Awami League’ and bring it into the elections.
Although Hasnat didn’t explicitly state who sat with him at the cantonment meeting, his response to a question at an NCP press conference the next day strongly implied the involvement of the army chief. Hasnat believes that the army chief’s recent comments about inclusive elections imply an intention to hold elections with the Awami League. It is assumed that everyone has associated the army chief with his cantonment meeting.
Within hours of this post, Asif Mahmud Shojib Bhuyain, a government adviser, shared a brief statement made by Hasnat, which later appeared in more detail during an interview with the adviser on a television channel. The statement, which went viral immediately, featured Asif Mahmud accusing the army chief of strongly opposing their chief adviser Yunus’ appointment. According to Asif, the army chief was unconvinced until the last moment and only reluctantly accepted the decision. Setting aside the truth of Asif’s claim, an important question arises: Why would a government adviser make a statement that puts the army chief under intense pressure at this critical moment?
A group that has long sought to create public opinion against the army chief and remove him from his post began using these two recent events against the army chief. Not only that, this time, they also called on the public to take to the streets against the army chief.
It is true that the army chief has previously discussed election timelines in an interview with Reuters after Sheikh Hasina’s fall and escape. His recent comments on inclusive elections are seen by some as military interference or influence in politics, which is not entirely unreasonable. Therefore, some legitimate criticism of the army chief is understandable. However, even before these recent events, efforts to build a context for removing the army chief were already underway.
Whether the Awami League will be banned or not, there can be debate, even arguments, over this issue. Politics will continue, but we must be vocal against any attempt to create instability and obstruct elections and the restoration of democracy.
It’s worth noting that the same accusation being leveled against the army chief could be more strongly directed at the chief adviser. As head of government, he himself stated that they were not banning the Awami League. Therefore, the responsibility for preserving and rehabilitating the Awami League should have fallen on Professor Yunus, but it did not happen. This suggests that whether or not the Awami League will continue is becoming more of a political conspiracy game.
The NCP press conference I mentioned was organised mainly in response to the chief adviser’s statement, criticising the chief adviser’s remarks about the Awami League. For some time, I have believed and mentioned in various occassions that the NCP would make banning the Awami League part of their political agenda. Even before forming the party, their two organisations, the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement and the Jaitya Nagorik Committee, had discussed this issue in depth.
Given the current political situation, the NCP likely sees this issue as one of the few ways to engage the general public. I’m not saying they are doing this without good intentions, but politics is politics. It requires issues that a political party can use to connect with the public and gain support. This explains why, despite being part of the government, adviser Mahfuj Alam (who could join the NCP at any time) has spoken against the Awami League’s political rights.
On the other hand, the issue of banning the Awami League has become part of a conspiracy game. The chief adviser has consistently mentioned that elections will be held by June next year. While some may have reservations about the June timeline, there is broad consensus across society that, provided certain reforms and the trial of Sheikh Hasina and her associates proceed, December would be an acceptable deadline.
A faction has openly taken a stance against elections, advocating for elections much later than the June timeline. While some criticism of the army chief’s actions is understandable, the current situation—after Sheikh Hasina’s fall and the country’s precarious state—does not allow for calm and reasoned judgment. However, it is clear that the military, under the army chief’s leadership, remains stable and strongly supports holding elections and restoring democracy at the right time.
It is true that the political future of the Awami League is a significant question in Bangladesh's politics now and in the near future. There is considerable international and geopolitical pressure against banning the Awami League. Even the United Nations Human Rights Commission, which has issued harsh reports against Sheikh Hasina, her associates, and her party, opposes banning the Awami League.
As mentioned earlier, while the ICT law does not allow banning a political party, at least two other laws do. The 2009 Anti-Terrorism Act allows the government to ban a political party through administrative order. According to the Political Parties Ordinance of 1978, the government can appeal to the High Court to ban a political party or suspend its activities. If desired, the government could specifically seek the High Court’s opinion on the Awami League through this law.
Whether the Awami League will be banned or not, there can be debate, even arguments, over this issue. Politics will continue, but we must be vocal against any attempt to create instability and obstruct elections and the restoration of democracy.
*Zahed Ur Rahman, political analyst and university teacher.
*This column appeared in the print and online edition of Prothom Alo and has been rewritten for the English edition by Rabiul Islam