Ready, set, and go. The stage is set and Bangladesh is going to have a participatory election today. Participatory? How can it be so when it is being boycotted by the main opposition? It’s a real Catch-22 situation for the ruling party. The constitution doesn’t allow an interim government, but elections have to happen as per the constitution and the threat of sanctions is hanging like a sword of Damocles. You will be damned even if you have a free election as there is no participation by one party (yes, the main opposition party BNP).
The ruling party (AL) has been accused of sham elections the last two times, and the opposition also boycotted them back then -- the last time BNP participated and then withdrew at the last moment on election day. Was it “bad-faith participation”? It’s almost like washing your hands while wearing gloves. The main opposition, by not participating, is now on the verge of becoming irrelevant. Is it the fear of not getting a popular mandate holding it back -- even after getting boosted by certain powers’ pronouncement (brazen interference in the internal affairs) of sanctions, etc? Shouldn't the BNP have taken a chance and gone for agitation after the fact, not before?
Whether because of genuine fear of a sanction or as a “good faith attempt,” the ruling party is trying hard to make it participatory even at the expense of coming off as silly by allowing its own people as independent candidates, asking supporters to vote for others rather than its own candidates. It seems, no matter what, AL wants to pack the Parliament with people of different stripes, congratulate new members from different parties, declare victory, and go home hoping that -- for the sake of realpolitik -- the powers will come around and put a seal of approval.
Whether such expectations are based on reality or a pipe-dream, only time will tell.
I am sure people have made up their minds whether they can exercise their rights or not. Let’s unpack what can be the factors which may have helped them make up their minds and what narratives they are bought into to decide their votes. The way people are talking about all the shortcomings of the current government, it seems freedom of speech is in full throttle, even on overdrive as a matter of fact. It may be due to the sword of Damocles hanging overhead.
The middle-class intelligentsia surely soured on the AL, and this is the class that makes the narratives, which are then subscribed to by the common people. Despite tremendous success -- even begrudgingly admitted by its detractors -- by the government in various sectors like education, industrialization, policies, infrastructure development, women empowerment, etc -- people still soured on it. We need to see who these people are. These very people were with the government when AL cobbled together a “governing coalition” to rule the country: The ruling party, the Army, police, the national bureaucracy, the newly uber-rich moneyed businessmen, and even the religious elites (Hefazat-e-Islam. Though it was a Faustian bargain, I believe).
Though certain elements of this grand coalition thought they were also equal partners, the reality was anything but. Perhaps that is the reason behind the souring? I do see a crack in the coalition (I’ll come to that later) -- but has the majority of this class really been turned off?
A long tenure by the ruling party has made it something of a fossil. Lack of proper framework on internal party governance and being a mass party -- that too in the midst of wild-wild-west development -- it seems the leadership has lost some control, which paved the way to too many being soured by it. But, really, did everyone (according to a BBC article, over 30 million people were pulled from poverty) suddenly turn against the current government?
A quick, unscientific survey of all the social media who are in overdrive on anti-AL hysteria reveals that most of the creators or purveyors of all the stories -- mostly fake, manufactured, born out of anti-India mindsets -- are not the current stakeholders of the country. Mostly, it appears, it is the old guards, who have no stakes on the ground sitting cool with their hard-earned money from Bangladesh from a safe distance and resentful that they had been pushed out of the power structure. The ruling party stands accused of destroying the institutions in Bangladesh - but isn’t this the quarter responsible for creating narratives and making the people apprehensive of all the institutions as well?
The narratives they have created, are they even real? You can travel from Tetulia-to-Teknaf and see whether people are much better off than they were 10 years ago. Hasn’t the country attained self-sufficiency in food security? Hasn’t industrialization been expedited? Haven’t more people become educated? Haven’t more women joined the workforce? Hasn’t infrastructure improved dramatically?
These improvements do not occur in the vacuum.
You need a government guiding changes with the appropriate policy, budget, subsidies/incentives, and, obviously, governance. The ruling party’s problems stem from a long tenure, weak party governance, allowing unfettered corruption to take root, and a lack of control over its various wings.
People should understand that, during the breakneck speed of development, a country turns into a go-go economy. The next natural progression is the re-establishment of the rule of law, which even the cronies would start demanding to safeguard their ill-gotten wealth. A change will inevitably upset the path forward for Bangladesh.
Does AL deserve another chance? It’s up to the people to ask this question to themselves and decide. But whatever the answer, foreign detractors should absolutely know their place and step aside.
Shameem Rumee Hasan works in governance and compliance for a multi-national bank in the US.
