Constitutional Transfer of Power Continues to Elude Bangladesh

Bangladeshi public intellectual Afsan Chowdhury says that this is because countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh failed to imbibe the Constitutional values British rule had given to India and Sri Lanka.

Even 53 years after becoming an independent country, Bangladesh has not developed a stable system of transfer of power from one Government to another.

Governments have also been shaky, fearing either the restive masses or the powerful military. Even rulers were insecure because of factionalism within the ranks, which was often violent and murderous.

From 1971 to 1990, governance was patently undemocratic. The very first Bangladeshi regime led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was anything but democratic. It was also violently overthrown by a faction of the army in August 1975. But Sheikh Mujib’s removal did not bring stability. There were two more military coups in 1975.

Full power

Finally, Army Chief Gen. Ziaur Rahman took over and restored order assuming full power in 1977. Zia purged the Army of revolutionary, leftist and pro-Mujib officers.

However, Zia put Bangladesh on the geopolitical map of South Asia, by founding SAARC, Islamising the country, and moving close to Pakistan in preference to India. In 1978, he created the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) to compete with Sheikh Hasina’s pro-Indian Awami League in elections. But his intolerant streak crushed dissent had bred intolerance in turn. He was assassinated by a faction of the army in 1981.

Zia was replaced by another military dictator, Gen. H.M.Ershad. He contributed to Bangladesh in the field of economic development. But he was a dictator. A massive all party agitation forced him to quit in 1990 handing over power to a non-party Caretaker Government.

In the 1991 elections, the BNP led by Khaleda Zia got 30.81 percent and the Awami League led by Sheikh Hasina got 30.03 percent. But under the First Past the Post System, BNP won more seats and formed the Government with Khaleda Zia as Prime Minister.

The Awami League demanded that Bangladesh switch from the Presidential to the parliamentary system with the Prime Minister as the Chief Executive. Accordingly, the BNP Government passed the Twelfth Constitutional Amendment, which restored the parliamentary form of government.

After 15 years of military rule, Bangladesh appeared to be on the way to becoming a democracy with a broad consensus on governance. But anxieties about the neutrality of electoral institutions and the need to sustain patron–client relations fuelled political antagonism and violence. Ruling parties attempted to weaken the opposition through human rights violations.

In 1994, the Awami League accused the ruling BNP of political thuggery and held mass protests, strikes, and blockades demanding a non-partisan Caretaker Government that would ensure free and fair elections. The BNP said that such an unelected body would be unconstitutional. The Awami League boycotted the February 1996 elections. So, unopposed, the BNP was back in power.

But BNP rule was unpopular. It was forced to submit to the Awami League’s demand for a Caretaker Government to conduct elections. Parliament passed the Thirteenth Amendment for this purpose.

In the June 1996 re-elections, under a Caretaker Government, the Awami League won. Ahead of the 2001 elections, the Awami League handed over power to a Caretaker Government. The BNP won the 2001 elections.

But the BNP regime was unpopular. In 2006, ahead of the 2007 elections, political turmoil erupted. The BNP and the Awami League locked horns over choosing a candidate to head the Caretaker Government before fresh elections could take place.

In October 2006, President Iajuddin Ahmed declared himself head of the Caretaker Government, and announced that elections would be held in January 2007. However, on January 11, 2007, Army Chief Lt General Moeen Ahmed staged a military coup. He formed a military-backed Caretaker Government with Fakhruddin Ahmed, an economist, as its head. President Iajuddin Ahmed remained President of the country.

The Fakhruddin Ahmed’s Caretaker Government launched an anti-corruption drive imprisoning several prominent politicians, including Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia of BNP. This alienated the public.

In the 2008 elections, the Awami League was swept to power. In June 2011, the Awami League dominated Parliament passed the Fifteenth Constitutional Amendment, which abolished the Caretaker Government system.

As a consequence, the BNP boycotted the Parliamentary elections in January 2014. In January 2015, antagonisms between political parties drew Bangladesh into yet another round of intense violence. The Awami League accused the BNP of terrorism and arrested over 10,000 opposition activists. Over 60 people were killed. The BNP then felt that there was no option but to boycott elections all elections not conducted under a new Caretaker Government.

Aggrieved masses

Thus, Bangladesh came to be run as a de-facto one-party Awami League Government under Sheikh Hasina. This lasted till August 2024.

The absolute power that Hasina acquired, corrupted her absolutely. In the absence of a functioning opposition party, the BNP having been crippled by arrests of its leaders, the aggrieved masses had to take the law into their hands and unseat Hasina. On August 5, 2024, following a month and a half long widespread agitation in which more than 1,000 were killed, Sheikh Hasina fled the country.

The university student-led mass movement was meant to restore democracy. But till date, it has not been restored. Parliament was dissolved and MPs fled for their lives. A Council was formed to advise President Mohammed Shahabuddin, with Nobel Laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus as Chief Advisor.

The Advisory Council is planning structural reforms through six committees. It has ruled out elections before reforming the system. But democracy lovers said that this is putting the cart before the horse. The whole purpose of the protest movement was to restore democracy and take decisions on the basis of consultations and not postponing elections.

Recently, President Mohammed Shahabuddin threw a spanner in the works, when he told MatiurRahan Chowdhury, the editor of “ManabZamin” that he had “no documentary evidence of Sheikh Hasina’s resignation.” The President told Chowdhury that he was expecting Hasina to call on him and submit a resignation letter on August 5. But the Army Chief Gen.Waker-uz-Zamam came instead and said that Hasina had left the country.

The President’s interview to ManabZamin was interpreted to mean that he deemed Sheikh Hasina to be Prime Minister of Bangladesh still, and that the interim Government and the Council of Advisors lacked legality. Some even darkly hinted that the President, having been an appointee of Sheikh Hasina, was part of a plot to bring her back and thwart the move to drag her before the Bangladesh War Crime Tribunal to answer serious charges.

Others said that this was army’s move to bring Hasina back because the Editor of ManabZamin is “close” to the Army and Army chief Gen.Waker-uz-Zamam is a relation of Hasina’s.

Presidential palace

Those who had agitated for a month to oust Hasina stormed the Presidential palace “Bangababon” calling for Shahabuddin’s resignation. The police opened fire injuring at least three youngsters. The Law Advisor in the Council of Advisors declared President Shahabuddin as being unfit to hold the high office.

Eventually, President Shahabuddin apologised for what he said. But to his credit he never said that the successor Interim Government led by Muhammad Yunus is illegitimate. As a jurist himself, Shahabuddin knew that Bangladesh courts had, multiple times in the past, legitimised Governments that had come into being by unorthodox means like a military coup.

Challenges to state authority in Bangladesh have generally stemmed from the inability of institutions to adequately ensure power sharing and consensual decision making. Political will for electoral reform has been elusive because an alternative system might dim the prospect of controlling state resources for personal benefit. Greed has become the basic motivation in Bangladesh politics.

According to Bangladeshi public intellectual Afsan Chowdhury, if Constitutional transfer of power continues to elude Bangladesh, it is because it had not adopted the Constitutional values British rule had given India and Sri Lanka. India and Sri Lanka had faithfully adopted the British legacy while Pakistan and Bangladesh charted a different path.

P. K. Balachandran, Author.

This article was originally published on Sunday Observer.
Views in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect CGS policy.