THE political situation nearly a month after the uprising in Bangladesh has generated a ferment of ideas about what to do next from a diverse range of social forces. It has also led to demands being made on the interim government by all and sundry. All this is to be expected and reflects what has happened in other parts of the world where people’s upsurges have taken place.
Let’s review the forces at work. First, there’s an influential body of people who argue the problem of democracy in Bangladesh stems from an original sin in the constitution. The enactment of the constitution in 1972, written in English and then translated into Bengali, was ratified by a parliament whose members were elected in Pakistan.
The whole process they feel did not embody the spirit of the independence struggle of 1971 and simply bore the imprint of a single party. The entire nation was not involved in that process. Now, as a matter of urgency, they are arguing for a conference and convention to discuss, debate, and formulate a new constitution.
They emphasise its necessity because they feel that the present movement is akin to a second “independence struggle.” Second, there are prominent economists and thinkers who strongly feel that any talk of constitution, legitimacy and even legality is a distraction and a luxury. What the interim government should as a matter of urgency concentrate on is the vulnerable nature of the economy.
The head of a prominent think tank has been asked to lead a team and submit a comprehensive report on the state of the economy in 90 days. That is expected to form the basis for formulating a medium-term economic strategy. The Bangladesh Bank has been entrusted to restructure the financial and banking sector.
The planning and economic advisers are desperately attempting to ensure macro-economic stability alongside stabilising the external trade sector and dealing with internal inflation. A tall order indeed and therefore at odds with concentration on the constitution. Third, are those within Muhammad Yunus’s Cabinet and a substantial section of civil society who feel that there is a possibility of a counter-revolution, and a return of the previous regime aided by India if the day-to-day running of the government machinery is not returned to a semblance of normality.
That to them is the biggest challenge facing the country today and not idealistic discussion on constitutional niceties or reorganising the economy, which calls for a medium to long-term road map. What is essential on a day-to-day basis is to overcome, within the shortest possible time, the legacy left by the Awami League regime in the form of a state where the distinction between the different sections of the government machinery and the party itself has been eradicated. The party had simply merged with the state, especially at the upper echelon of governance.
The urgent task now is to get rid of all those Awami League and Sheikh Hasina acolytes as soon as possible. That process has started, and mistakes are bound to happen. For example, controversies have already begun on the new appointment of the vice-chancellor of Dhaka University.
It is estimated that about a thousand crucial appointments are in the pipeline. Once that is done it will have to be extended further downwards. Such was the extent of fascist cronyism of the previous regime.
Therefore, the aspect of daily governance is where the interim regime should focus. Fourth, there are members of different political traditions from the liberal to social democrats and the left who have been propagating for over a decade, as fascism crept into the body politic, that a reform of state institutions is vital since these are still run on old colonial legal lines. What is needed is the thinking through of modern, smart, and appropriate “state reforms” for a post-colonial state.
Without this essential requirement all the changing of personnel will be a necessary condition but not a sufficient one for history not repeating itself. Only a throughgoing reform will guarantee that the governance of the country cannot again be hijacked by party appointees. Fifth are the political parties themselves, especially the right-wing Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the reactionary religious party Jamaat Islami who are demanding a very speedy election from the interim regime.
They are arguing that at the end of the day the struggle was for democracy and hence all the aforementioned ideas on constitution, economy, governance, and reform of state institutions will not have ultimate legitimacy unless they are ratified and made into law by a parliament. Therefore, the interim government should simply restrict itself to establishing the framework for a free and fair elections and leave the rest to the elected parliamentarians. A favourite slogan doing the round is: Awami League have eaten up the country for the past 15 years and the BNP and Jammaat have been hungry for the past 15 years.
In other words, “down with the dictator, long live the dictator.” The set of ideas, debates and discussions are bound at some point in time to lead to formal divisions within the countryt. Ultimately a power struggle is bound to erupt and only an election can finally resolve it.
But when will it be held? BNP and Jamaat want it within six months to a year. Already BNP has given notice to Yunus to quickly give a time frame. The interim government itself is preparing for a wait of three to five years before holding any polls.
This is bound to be a serious fault line between Yunus and the major parties who have not forgiven him for attempting to depoliticise “politics” during 2006-2008. The showdown will be keenly watched. In that battle both the groups will try to use the prestige of the young generation and especially the students who have given brave and successful leadership to the people’s movement.
At the moment the odds are favouring the interim government but with the passage of time it might start to tilt in favour of the mainstream political parties. Which way will the students go? At the moment they are riding high. Not only have they led the movement to remove a dictator but they are also carrying out a mammoth national effort to help the victims of the recent devastating flood.
If the interim government tries to curtail “student politics” in the educational institutions or if the divisions emerging on how to steer the gains of the movement burst into the open, then the power struggle will be both vicious and along left-right lines. Hovering over this scenario is the geopolitics around the events in Bangladesh. That will also have an effect of how the future in Bangladesh shapes up.
The most significant player is India. It is the government of Modi that had the biggest influence in propping up the previous regime in return for secret treaties on the economic, political, and military fronts. No wonder the first statement of Dr Yunus was to warn India that any attempt to disturb the present situation in Bangladesh will mean negative consequences for the seven states of India popularly known as “seven sisters” (north-east Indian states joined to India by a narrow land corridor and otherwise cut off from it by Bangladesh).
India for its part has suffered a major setback is Bangladesh. The two fascist regimes have collaborated in every aspect against the people of these two populous states. That is now over.
India will, if possible, attempt to restore the Hasina regime but that appears to be nearly impossible without triggering a massive onslaught on the people of Bangladesh. The US supported India’s efforts to keep Hasina in power in rigged elections in 2014 and 2018. In 2024 it turned against Hasina but finally succumbed to Indian pressure and ignored what happened in the elections.
All of them are united by their alliance against China. Just before her fall Hasina went to China to secure economic assistance to shore up the economy but returned empty-handed. China will in the short term benefit from an India-US split but US backing of the technocratic/NGO government of Yunus will see ramping up of anti-China rhetoric.
The left and progressive forces are attempting to create a very broad united front of workers, peasants and working people to chart an independent course that is both anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist in orientation. Such forces are relatively weak at the moment but have the immense possibility of being a major player in the not too distant future. But that is another tale for other articles.
.
