Suppression is the surest way to incite rebellion. History has enough precedents and examples to show that when a political party or ideology is banned, it may raise its head even more menacingly.
Recently, the High Court in Bangladesh declared Jamaat-e-Islami’s registration as a political party illegal on the grounds that its charter was incompatible with Bangladesh’s constitution, because its rules, in particular, for leadership, discriminate on the basis of gender and religion.
Among other things, Jamaat, in principle does not recognise people as the source of sovereignty and power, so it does not accept the undisputed power of people’s representatives to make laws. Also, many of its top leaders have been sentenced by the War Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh for committing crimes during the Liberation War of 1971. Earlier this year, at the mass demonstrations in Shahbag, many of the protestors had called for a ban on the fundamentalist organisation. For a country that has secular aspirations, de-registration may appear to be a logical move.
However, we do not have to look far back to see how such a step can actually be counterproductive to the cause of democracy.
Today, Egypt is a country besieged and fear and panic rule its streets. The military crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood and the pro-Morsi supporters means that the security forces of the country are fighting their own people, leading to the deaths of hundreds of Egyptians.
The Muslim Brotherhood has a chequered history in Egypt. The movement was founded in 1928 in Egypt with the intention of spreading Islamic morals and promoting Shariah law. The group soon became involved in politics and has been alternately suppressed and tolerated by the state. Successive governments in Egypt have used the group as a political tool when it suited their needs.
Anwar Sadat played the Muslim Brotherhood as leverage against communism and Mubarak softened his stance against them, when he realised that the group filled the void in the provision of social services by the state.
Even though the movement may have been forced underground in phases, it continued to mobilise and attract cadres. It managed to extend its reach to such an extent that in the 2005 elections held under the Mubarak regime, it garnered almost 20% of the votes, prompting Mubarak to crack-down even harder on them.
After the 2011 Revolution, it became the largest political party in Egypt and formed the government after winning a majority in the country’s first democratic elections. But that is where the good times ended.
Morsi and his government were eager to silence all dissenting ideologies and establish their stranglehold over the Egyptian society, thus undermining democracy. This is how they had seen previous regimes rule in Egypt and they thought it was the only way to stay in power.
The Muslim Brotherhood suffered for their miscalculation as they too were ousted by the military on July 3, following days of anti-Morsi protests. Now, the military-backed government is mulling plans to outlaw the group.
If such an eventuality comes to fruition, they will be guilty of repeating the same mistake of non-inclusion and suppression. Denied a chance to participate at the ballot box, alienated members of the Muslim Brotherhood may decide to back armed resistance, pushing the country further into an abyss.
International media is already making comparisons between the present situation in Egypt and what is regarded as the “black decade” of the 1990s in Algeria, when the electoral process was interrupted, leading to tensions between the military and Algeria’s Islamist party.
There is a lesson in these events for Bangladesh. This is not to say that the Jamaat has the same kind of support and reach as the Muslim Brotherhood or is close to managing an election victory. Far from it, but excluding them from the electoral process is counter-productive to the cause of democracy, since it needlessly silences voices of dissent. It may also counter-productively spawn a cycle of the politics of retribution.
It will be difficult for any government to keep a check on Jamaat members’ activities if the party is outlawed and they are forced underground. It may even make the Jamaat more attractive to disillusioned sections of the electorate, who will look upon them as the saviour. Not having been allowed to be tested at the ballot box or in governance, they will be above reproach if they argue that democracy is flawed.
A democratic form of government is one which affords the people of a nation the means to choose their leaders and hold them accountable for their actions and conduct in office.
Political Islam is definitely a complication but is banning the party a solution? The right approach would be to allow them to present themselves to the people and offer their ideologies to the people for election.
Let the people decide if they can represent and be representative of the nation. Then, a democracy speaks!
