Dynamiting Democracy in Bangladesh

The Awami League reigns free to pursue a reign of terror to intimidate the Bangladeshi electorate. It has successfully diverted international attention away from itself as it lights the fuse to dynamite democracy in Bangladesh

The opposition fourteen-party alliance led by Sheikh Hasina of the Awami League is engaged daily in a deadly game of destabilising the infant democratic process of the country. The last onslaught of their escalating spiral of violence went far beyond the depth to which even the Awami League is expected to stoop; this time it did not hesitate to violate the sanctity of the country’s highest court of justice – the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice’s chamber was totally ransacked and set on fire by the Awami hoodlums. This happens within weeks of these terrorist lynch mobs systematically clubbing to death, on 28 October 06, a number of innocent and unarmed supporters of other political groups in Dhaka in broad day light and in the full view of television cameras watched by millions around the world. In the words of Amnesty International, we are witnessing a ‘wave of violence that has engulfed Bangladesh over last five days’ (reported on 01.11.06), ‘over thirty people were killed and hundreds others have been injured’. The ferocity of the murderous terrorism is further underlined by the vicious arms the murderers used and the way they danced on the dead after committing the murders. In some cases they even used pistols and other firearms. The deafening silence from Awami League leader Sheikh Hasina or any one from the Awami League High Command was palpable. The lack of condemnation smacks of complicity.

See the AL orchestrated violence below


But where is the debate? Where is the outrage? Our previous post reported the success the Awami League has had in lobbying the international community and deflecting any scrutiny towards their murderous tactics. It seems to have paid off. International discourse, and pronouncements from international groups seem to have bought Awami League misinformation hook, line and sinker. When it come to Bangladesh then, analysis is not subject to the rigors of customary tests and analysis. Even the foremost humanitarian organisation Amnesty International could not bring itself to take the perpetrators to task and five days after the gruesome lynching merely issued a press statement ‘strongly’ condemning ‘the wave of violence’ and asking ‘the political parties’ to condemn and refrain, bracketing both the murderers and the victims in the same category. But shying away from naming names is not Amnesty’s normal practice. On the same day that Amnesty International issued its statement, this correspondent notes how Amnesty is happy to be more forthright on non-Bangladeshi matters: ‘to Act Now for Bitondo Nyumba who has been beaten and raped by government soldiers from her own country.’

Meanwhile, New York-based Human Rights Watch betrayed its claims to be impartial by, on the one hand, remaining silent on Awami League excesses, but on the other hand, (rightly) cautioning the government and former ruling party over the possible use of security forces to further its own objectives. Lacking fair language, and shedding any rigorous intellectual inquiry, HRW forgot to mention that the military has studiously strayed away from politics since 1991, and that, given the cycle of violence unleashed by the Awami League, security forces were deployed to maintain law and order. If Human Rights Watch were to look at this objectively, it would also report on the private armies maintained by all political parties, most notably by the Awami League through its ‘Chatra’ and ‘Jubo’ League.

Bangladeshis know Awami League is responsible
Bangladeshis however do not in the slightest doubt the identity of the real culprit. In a survey carried out by the interactive current affairs bulletin ‘Bangladesh Pratidin’ (Bangladesh daily) of the London based Bangla TV 61.82% said they consider the Awami League is responsible, 34.43% thought it was the BNP, while just 3.59% blamed the Jamaat for this violence. It should be noted that Bangla TV is no friend of the BNP or the Jamaat.

A sinister onslaught against the Centre-Right and Islamists in Bangladesh is now gathering pace in earnest. Cognisant that it is unlikely to challenge the success of the BNP through democratic norms, the party is deploying unmitigated violence to intimidate the Bangladeshi electorate. Internationally, the Awami League is playing a clever game to deflect attention away from it, but at the same time clipping the wings of law enforcement agencies who can check that violence. The Awami League has powerful friends abroad, and is succeeding to stifle international scrutiny.

Sheikh Hasina and her international mentors are increasingly frustrated to see the success of the four party centre-right alliance composed of mainly nationalist Bangladesh National Party (BNP) of the outgoing prime minister Begum Khaleda Zia, the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) led by Motiur Rahman Nizami, smaller Islamic group the Islamic Oyko Jote and, lately, the Jatiyo Party of former President Ershad. The Jamaat had two cabinet posts occupied by the leader of the party Mawlana Nizami and its secretary-general Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid. Both received national and international accolade for being competent and incorrupt. Over the last five years, the BNP has managed to lead a plural government, and has presided over steady economic growth. And, as its term ended, the Government resigned and fully subscribed to the possibility of democratic transition.

Political violence, especially during election campaign has become an essential part of the electoral process. This, coupled with wide spread fraud and ballot rigging makes a mockery of the democratic process. Consequently on the Jamaat’s proposal a new system of Care Taker Government (in 1995) is now been enshrined in the constitution of the country requiring the sitting government to retire at the end of their term when a neutral Care Taker Government headed by the most immediate retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court takes over. The head of the government during this period takes the title of Chief Advisor and not the Prime Minister. The Chief Advisor appoints non-political technocrats to take charge of different government departments and hold election within three months of taking office.

In order to have a free hand in election manipulation Sheikh Hasina and her Awami League party are determined to see their party nominees in different important positions and leave no stone unturned to achieve this objective. Since Begum Khaleda Zia handed over power at the end of her five year term to the President on 27th October, the Awami League refused to accept the newly appointed Chief Advisor, The Chief Election Commissioner and even insisting for the resignation of the elected President and all senior Civil Servants. Unlikely to achieve its unconstitutional and undemocratic demands, the League began its ferocious hooliganism on the 28th October 06.

Sadly, it seems the Awami League enjoys the full support of foreign governments. Western ambassadors and visiting government leaders apply pressure on the President to give-in to unreasonable Awami diktats. It is also reported that they met some of the senior appointees and tried to persuade them to give up their positions to satisfy Awami demands. And every leverage has been used to intimidate these elected officials of a sovereign government. From the withholding of investments to the mobilisation of foreign pressure groups.

Many Bangladeshis cannot help think they have been here before. A proud Muslim country is seeking to determine its destiny by fusing modernity with a polity inspired by its rich linguistic and Islamic heritage. Foreign powers cannot stomach this, and deploy every means to stop this. Plassey anyone? Bangladesh is not Afghanistan, and the Jamaat is not the Taliban. But that is how it is being painted, and, it seems, this is why the Awami League is being allowed to subvert democracy.

For instance a report compiled for the U.S Congress entitled ‘Bangladesh: Background and U.S Relations’ was published on 7th September 2006. The report bears the name of Bruce Vaugan, Analyst in South East and South Asian Affairs, but its content is littered with evidence that it could have been penned by Awami spin doctors. The report’s anti-Bangladeshi, pro-Awami and pro-India bias is glaringly obvious. Criticising Richard Boucher the Assistant Under Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs for his soft line to the Bangladesh government the report detects, ‘in the view of some(?), a growing discontent between independent American analysts and Indian analysts and the State department’. At the very outset it begins with six factors which it says ‘may indicate Bangladesh’s future direction’, and first of these six is ‘the political position of the Islamist parties as Bangladesh enters the upcoming January elections’ while the last is ‘any decision on exporting gas to India’. Its advocacy for the Awami position is also remarkable, as quoting BBC news dated August 8, 2006 (Bangladesh: Political Parties, Donor Agencies Discusses Election) it states, ‘the Awami League reportedly believes that the electoral commission, the civil administration, judiciary and the police force are thoroughly politicised and under the circumstances fair election are not possible’. Perhaps to ensure that election do not take place as desired by its client party it does not hesitate to contradict itself. While it quotes Reuters news (October 2, 2005) about the out come of last election which reads: ‘foreign observers say Bangladeshi vote was fair’, at the end it cites Economist Intelligence Unit (July 3, 2006) contradicting the earlier assertion that, It has been reported (where?) that the EU believes that the 2001 voter list included 13 million ‘ghost’ voters while the Department of State believes 8% of that voter list was fake’. There is of course no suggestion as to who benefited from such ‘ghost’ and ‘fake’ voters; it very conveniently omits the fact that as the party in power of the outgoing government it was the Awami League who compiled that voter list.

Indian think tanks are also busy producing a rich crop of reports on Bangladesh, in his report (6.11.06) Dr Anand Kumar of South Asia Analysis Group writes, ‘the crucial role played by the Islamist forces in the ruling coalition also created doubts in the minds of several people(?) as they do not believe in modern democracy’. And ‘Awami League led opposition group has been ‘agitating’ for a neutral caretaker government and changes in the administration’. It goes further, ‘the AL adopted a reconciliatory approach’, this they write about six days after the Awami League systematically lynched a number of people in the country. Finally it concludes with a stern warning, ‘the situation might worsen if the care taker government failed to satisfy the opposition AL’. Indeed, worsen it did, so much for the AL’s reconciliatory approach!

Yet, despite the prevalence of an international discourse in the Awami League’s favour, the Party’s best efforts may yet come to nothing. There has been widespread revulsion at the actions of the Awami League’s private armies. The blood of innocent people has left an indelible scar on the political landscape. This will do doubt favour the four-party alliance. But if the Awami League is successful in its design, we can all still witness the dynamiting of democracy in Bangladesh.