A name has suddenly surfaced across Bangladeshi social media and various established media outlets, a name well known in political circles but one that had not been mentioned publicly for quite some time.
Sheikh Fazlul Karim Selim has not only returned to the spotlight, but his name has also sparked a genuine debate both within and outside his party.
This debate was initiated by Sheikh Hasina herself.
In a telephonic interview with the Indian online news portal The Wall, Hasina remarked that Sheikh Selim could assume responsibility for the party in her absence.
Although she described this as a temporary measure in accordance with the party’s constitution, many interpreted it as a sign that she had chosen Sheikh Selim as her successor.
This assumption gave rise to various speculations, such as the idea that Sheikh Hasina was stepping away from politics or retiring, or that she had realized a return to Dhaka was no longer possible and was therefore handing over responsibility to Sheikh Selim.
The actual context, however, was different.
Amal Sarkar, executive editor of The Wall, had raised the issue during the interview. He asked who would take charge of the party if Sheikh Hasina were to be imprisoned or taken into custody by an agency for interrogation upon her return to Dhaka.
In response, Sheikh Hasina explained the Awami League’s constitution, stating that the most senior member of the Presidium would assume responsibility in such a scenario.
Currently, of the 16 Presidium members, three have passed away, six are in prison, one’s whereabouts are unknown, and six remain active. Among them, Sheikh Selim is the most senior.
Doubts surrounding Sheikh Selim
The explanation is clear. A similar situation arose during the 2007-08 “1/11” government era when Sheikh Hasina was imprisoned.
At the time, senior Presidium member Zillur Rahman took charge. That did not mean he had been designated as Hasina’s successor to the party presidency.
While the matter appears straightforward, there is no doubt that the mention of Sheikh Selim’s name fuelled the subsequent rumours and speculation.
Sheikh Selim has been elected to the National Parliament nine times. This fact alone sends a clear message about his popularity and local influence in Gopalganj.
He is the nephew of Bangladesh’s founding leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, specifically, Sheikh Hasina’s paternal cousin.
Perhaps because of this close familial relationship, many view Sheikh Selim not merely as someone who could take “temporary charge,” but as a potential permanent successor. That is precisely where the complication lies.
A Dhaka-based news portal has already reported that several senior leaders currently in Kolkata held a meeting and expressed disagreement with Hasina’s decision.
The report further stated that they proposed Jahangir Kabir Nanak for the role.
The issue here is that some observers have questioned the credibility of the report, even raising doubts about whether such a meeting actually took place.
Regardless, one thing is clear: There is no unanimous support for Sheikh Selim among Awami League leaders and activists.
Many perceive him as the kind of leader who “disappears during times of crisis.” And this is not merely about Sheikh Selim; the episode signals a deepening crisis within the Awami League.
The reported meeting is merely an indication of how acute the infighting among the party’s leaders in exile has become.
Who can be Hasina’s successor?
Ever since Sheikh Hasina’s tenure began, this question has been raised repeatedly, yet no satisfactory answer has ever emerged.
Who comes after Sheikh Hasina? Who will take the helm of the Awami League if Hasina retires? Does she have any plans regarding succession?
There has never been a direct answer to these questions.
Whenever confronted with this question, Hasina would say that the party would decide who its leader should be.
However, no one considered the possibility that the party might not be in a position to make such a decision when the time came.
By closing off the path to a transfer of power through elections, the Awami League perhaps believed it could safely remain in power for the long haul.
Yet, having enjoyed the comforts of governance for so long, the party, once a force that shook the streets, forgot that there are far more perilous paths to a change of power than elections.
It was precisely through such a perilous path that it was forced to relinquish power in 2024.
Since the fall of the Awami League, the question has resurfaced: Is a change in leadership on the horizon? How exactly will it happen, and who will step in?
Various people have attempted to answer these questions in different ways.
Many had assumed that the Awami League would be restructured around members against whom there were no allegations of serious crimes.
However, it became evident that even if a leader faced no such accusations at the time, the very moment they began the task of reorganizing the party, their name could be implicated in a case involving murder or “crimes against humanity.”
Yet, talk began circulating about a so-called “refined” or “reformed” Awami League. Names such as Saber Hossain Chowdhury, Shirin Sharmin Chaudhury, and even Narayanganj Mayor Selina Hayat Ivy were linked to this idea, although none of them publicly spoke of playing a role in restructuring the party.
However, one thing became clear: Regardless of the extent to which former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina bears responsibility for the Awami League’s current plight, in the eyes of the party’s grassroots activists, there is no leader other than her.
If the party were to be restructured under someone else’s leadership, it might remain a political party, but it would certainly cease to be the Awami League as they know it.
On the other hand, conversations with Awami League members, including former members of Parliament, over the past year or so suggest that if Sheikh Hasina herself were to initiate a transition process and select a successor, the rank and file might well accept that new leadership.
Yet there is another complication.
Over the last five decades, Bangladesh’s two major parties, the Awami League and the BNP, have become excessively dependent on particular families.
The BNP has never managed to step out of the shadow of its founder, Ziaur Rahman, nor has it made any serious attempt to do so.
The party is well aware that without the umbrella of the Zia family, its unity could crumble.
To keep the party together, leadership passed from General Zia to his wife, Khaleda Zia, and subsequently to their son, Tarique Rahman.
The situation within the Awami League is somewhat different.
Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was not the party’s founder; the Awami League was established by Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani and Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy.
However, under Sheikh Mujib’s leadership, the Awami League became the embodiment of the hopes and aspirations of the Bengali people in what was then East Pakistan.
It was under Sheikh Mujib that the party spearheaded the movement for self-determination and contested the 1970 elections. He provided the direction for the independence movement in March 1971, and the subsequent Liberation War was fought in his name.
Because of this historical continuity, and the fact that Mujib and almost his entire family were killed on August 15, 1975, the Awami League became inextricably linked with the Sheikh family.
Despite the presence of prominent leaders within the party following Mujib’s assassination, they brought Sheikh Hasina back from exile in 1981 to take the helm.
Accountability to the people
It would come as no surprise if, during these difficult times for the Awami League, party leaders and activists once again looked towards the Sheikh family.
A parallel can be drawn with the BNP, where party members naturally accepted Khaleda Zia’s son, Tarique Rahman, as her successor.
Whether it is a matter of temporary responsibility or long-term succession, there is no doubt that the Awami League must contemplate its post-Hasina future.
At the same time, however, it must address how to regain public trust following 2024.
There appear to be two clear reasons for the party’s current organizational stagnation and crisis of morale.
First is the issue of leadership. Despite the continued faith in Sheikh Hasina, the Awami League is currently, effectively, leaderless.
Whether because of the ban on its activities, the imprisonment or flight abroad of many leaders, or the looming threat of legal cases hanging over many, the bottom line is that the party faces an acute leadership crisis.
Second, the Awami League has failed to come to terms with the events of 2024, even after two years. There appears to have been no internal self-criticism or even a meaningful process of introspection within the party.
Its leaders remain fixated on conspiracy theories and continue to deny their own culpability.
The Awami League needs to ask itself some critical questions:
Why did the movement to oust the government occur?
Why did a movement become necessary to bring about a change in government?
Why did students repeatedly take to the streets?
Why did the urban middle class support the movement?
Why did so many people lose their lives?
The answers to these questions will determine the message the party conveys to the public.
If the Awami League views itself as a party of the people, it must be accountable to them.
It is through this process of accountability that the party’s future leadership may become clear.
Sabir Mustafa is the former head of BBC Bangla and is currently working as a freelance journalist and podcaster.