How do you hold a political party accountable for leading and abetting violence and murder against the very people it vowed to serve? A party that has siphoned billions from hard-earned investments, corrupted independent institutions, and rigged elections to cling to power? How do you punish the party that symbolizes fascism and has become synonymous with our political system since independence?
Surprisingly, you include them in the next elections.
Allowing Awami League politicians to participate in elections, especially when many of its leaders are facing murder trials, may seem counterintuitive. Student leaders who sacrificed their lives to oust the previous fascist regime -- and their families -- will rightly find this notion abhorrent. So too will those who have suffered torture, imprisonment, and silencing for standing against the former regime.
However, banning the Awami League isn’t justice; it’s vengeance. It is a shortcut that ultimately undermines the very principles for which we all fought for.
Supporters of the July uprising often adopt a narrow view in their fight against the regime. While fueled by anger at the Awami League's corruption and brutality, the protests were fundamentally cries for democracy. Banning a major political party, regardless of its past misdeeds, is an inherently undemocratic act that mirrors the very authoritarianism the people resisted. It’s like the pot calling the kettle black and then smashing the kettle to pieces.
History teaches us that banning political parties often backfires. Consider the Communist Party in Indonesia under Suharto or the African National Congress in South Africa during apartheid. Closer to home, the Awami League banned Jamaat from contesting elections. Did those bans erase their influence? Did they lead to lasting peace? Absolutely not. They drove these parties underground, radicalized their members, and exacerbated the problems.
This isn't about being lenient on crime; it's about being strategic with democracy
Curiously, current polls suggest that Jamaat is performing significantly better than the newly formed National Citizens’ Party. Ironically, a party that opposed the creation of Bangladesh is outpacing one that claims to champion the fight against fascism. What, then, is the purpose of a political ban?
A ban on the Awami League would likely have the same consequences. It would foster resentment and instability. With no legitimate political outlet, the party's supporters -- still numerous -- might resort to violence or align with more unsavory factions. It's a formula for chaos.
Some argue that the Awami League has forfeited its right to participate in democracy due to their egregious abuses of power. But who decides that? A select few or a kangaroo court? No. The decision must rest with the people. It needs to be made through the same democratic principles and independent authorities that the Awami League sought to dismantle. If this isn't the perfect punishment, what is?
Let the Awami League face the consequences. Hold them accountable for their actions, in courts and at the ballot box. Their leaders should be tried for their crimes, but the party itself must also be given a chance to atone, reform, and regain the trust of the people.
This isn't about being lenient on crime; it's about being strategic with democracy. True justice is not about vengeance; it’s about building a more just and stable society. It’s about letting the people decide the fate of the Awami League. It’s about demonstrating to the world that in Bangladesh, the people are the true masters of their destiny. And that, my friends, is the sweetest form of revenge.
Faruq Hasan is a political economist and a development worker.