Ever since her 16-year regime crumbled in a mass uprising last August, Sheikh Hasina has been labeled a 'fascist,' 'despot,' 'autocrat, ''dictator,' and so on. While these terms are not synonymous, they all capture the essence of her authoritarian rule, reflecting her relentless grip on power. The word 'despot,' derived from the Greek 'despotes,' implies an absolute ruler with unchecked authority, the term 'autocrat' refers to rulers who cling to power by manipulating institutions, staging superficial elections, and imposing controlled freedoms to present a facade of legitimacy. 'Dictator,' in contrast, evokes images of rule secured by brute force, fear, and propaganda, with institutions gutted to bolster a cult of personality.
Hasina's misrule encompassed elements of all three. She seized control of the political apparatus, rigged elections, and wielded state violence to crush opposition. Her regime systematically silenced dissent through crackdowns, mandated public displays of her and her father's portraits as symbols of loyalty, and ruthlessly penalized any deviation from her official narratives. As her regime unraveled, she responded with bloody force, directing brutal crackdowns on protesting students and attempting to maintain power at any cost -- only to flee when over a thousand lives were lost, and the military refused to shoot protesters.
Hasina's desperate hold on power echoes the tactics of many other notorious despots, such as Tunisia's Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, Sudan's Omar al-Bashir, Indonesia's Suharto, and the Philippines' Ferdinand Marcos. All of them left legacies of repression, corruption, economic malaise, and shattered dreams of democracy. This article draws parallels between Hasina's despotic reign and those of her infamous counterparts.
A. Autocratic Control and Repression
Sheikh Hasina took power in 2009, and swiftly cemented autocratic control over Bangladesh, much like the despots mentioned above -- she utilized state institutions, police, military, and judiciary -- to silence dissent and maintain her authoritarian rule. Reports of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, censorship, and the brutal suppression of opposition became alarmingly frequent, creating a pervasive climate of fear.
Hasina's iron-fisted governance parallels Ben Ali's 24-year dictatorship in Tunisia, where repression was enforced through a formidable police state. Ben Ali maintained power by tightening his grip over the judiciary, media, and civil society, much like Hasina's use of state agencies to crush opposition. Both regimes orchestrated massive propaganda campaigns to reinforce their leadership, with portraits of Ben Ali displayed across Tunisia and mandatory displays of Hasina and her father's images in Bangladesh. Both leaders faced mass uprisings -- Ben Ali's ouster in 2011 and Hasina's collapse in 2024 -- triggered by deep-seated public grievances over corruption, repression, and systemic injustice. The Anti-Discrimination Student Movement in Bangladesh mirrors the Tunisian protests that began after Mohamed Bouazizi's self-immolation, both sparking widespread revolts fueled by years of accumulated societal frustration.
Similarly, Hasina's tactics echoed Mubarak's 30-year rule in Egypt. Mubarak enforced state of emergency throughout his reign to enforce arbitrary arrests, torture, and suppression of free expression, mirroring Hasina's extensive use of the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) and other security forces to abduct, torture, and silence critics. Mubarak's regime was infamous for torture practices like electric shocks and brutal beatings, comparable to the horrors of the House of Mirror, where detainees endured relentless psychological and physical torment. Both regimes relied on sweeping internet blackouts and heavy-handed police deployments during periods of mass protest that ultimately led to their downfall.
The brutality of Hasina's reign also draws comparisons to Omar al-Bashir's 30-year rule in Sudan, where dissent was met with systemic violence, and repression was enforced through a network of secret detention centers. Al-Bashir's security apparatus committed widespread human rights abuses, from extrajudicial killings to mass atrocities, resembling Hasina's use of shadowy intelligence units like the DGFI and the RAB. The popular uprising that ended al-Bashir's reign in 2019 finds echoes in the collapse of Hasina's regime, as widespread frustration and economic despair boiled over into unstoppable public revolt.
In Indonesia, Suharto's 32-year New Order regime set a precedent for violent suppression, using the military to eliminate political opponents and executing hundreds of thousands during his rise to power. Like Hasina, Suharto relied on a culture of fear and a brutal security apparatus to stay in power. His downfall, precipitated by economic crisis and student-led protests, mirrors the intense student activism and economic discontent that led to Hasina's ouster. Both regimes responded to crises with violence, hoping to stave off change, only to be overwhelmed by the sheer force of public outrage.
Ferdinand Marcos's brutal dictatorship in the Philippines, lasting 14 years under martial law, also parallels Hasina's oppressive rule. Marcos's government was responsible for tens of thousands of human rights abuses, from enforced disappearances to mass incarceration and torture. His tactics, including severe repression of journalists and political opponents, bear similarities to Hasina's widespread censorship and persecution of media figures and activists. Both rulers held to power through a blend of propaganda and force, only to be toppled by mass uprisings -- the People Power Revolution in Marcos's case and the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement in Hasina's.
B. Economic Malaise and Corruption
Under Hasina's rule
Bangladesh's economic mismanagement and corruption mirrored patterns observed in other despotic regimes worldwide. By 2023, the economic fallout was severe: distressed loans, including defaults, rescheduled debts, and write-offs, amounted to a staggering 32 percent of total bank loans. Many of these loans were distributed to Hasina's political supporters and cronies under a highly corrupt financial system. Inflation climbed to nearly 12 percent, the currency's devaluation diverted remittances to informal channels, and foreign reserves dropped dangerously low, covering only 2.5 months of imports. Money laundering was rampant -- according to Global Financial Integrity (GFI), Bangladesh lost about $8.27 billion annually from 2009 to 2018, much of it involving Hasina's associates. Doing business in Bangladesh required cuts of 10-20 percent for members of Hasina's clan. She fled the country under military supervision, nobody knows yet how much wealth she had siphoned away.
This economic malaise under Hasina finds clear parallels in the administration of Ben Ali in Tunisia. His regime was marked by the conspicuous consumption and corruption of his wife, Leila Trabelsi, and her network of wealthy relatives. The Ben Ali clan profited massively from the privatization of state assets, securing cheap loans from state-run banks to amass holdings in hotels, real estate, airlines, and telecommunications. As in Bangladesh, doing business in Ben Ali's Tunisia meant paying off the presidential family, often in the form of 10 to 20 percent of profits. When Ben Ali and his wife fled in 2011, they took away 1.5 tons of gold from the state bank, in a final act of plunder symbolizing their era of corruption.
Mubarak's Egypt similarly suffered from cronyism and economic mismanagement. The regime's policies favored a narrow elite while neglecting the broader population, many of whom remained in poverty. Corruption was systemic, with wealth flowing to those loyal to the president. The global financial crisis of 2008 only exacerbated existing inequalities and discontent, ultimately fueling the revolution that overthrew Mubarak. Despite the growing economic malady, Mubarak maintained strong Western support, with leaders like Tony Blair praising him as a 'force for good' who upheld Western interests in the region. Billions of dollars in military aid from the United States bolstered his rule, even as ordinary Egyptians struggled under the weight of economic hardships.
In Sudan, Omar al-Bashir's regime presided over economic decline, particularly after South Sudan's secession in 2011, which cost Sudan a critical source of oil revenue. The loss was compounded by international sanctions and diplomatic isolation, driven by al-Bashir's human rights abuses and corruption. Wealth and resources were concentrated among his loyalists, while the general population faced widespread poverty and economic instability. This economic decline mirrored the corruption and favoritism seen in Hasina's Bangladesh, where an elite class thrived at the expense of the country.
Indonesia under Suharto presented a similar case of economic development overshadowed by profound corruption. His family monopolized key sectors of the economy, and businesses operated under a system of political patronage, where bribes and kickbacks were routine. Suharto and his family allegedly accumulated a vast fortune, estimated by Transparency International to exceed $30 billion. The 'Jakarta Method' allowed Suharto to maintain power but created significant economic disparities. Like Hasina's Bangladesh, economic opportunities were limited to those within the ruling circle, leading to widespread public discontent.
The Marcos regime in the Philippines is another prime example of economic bungling and corruption on a massive scale. Ferdinand Marcos and his wife, Imelda, stole an estimated $5-10 billion from the national treasury, earning them a Guinness World Record for government theft. Their rule plunged the Philippines from a promising economic trajectory into being the 'Sick Man of Asia,' characterized by soaring debt and widespread poverty. Marcos's cronies were granted monopolies over key industries, Imelda's notorious opulence, exemplified by her collection of 3,000 pairs of shoes and extravagant lifestyle, symbolized the grotesque excess of the regime. As in Bangladesh under Hasina, economic governance was less about national prosperity and more about enriching an elite class at the expense of the populace.
C. Familial Politics and Dynastic Rule
The Hasina regime in Bangladesh displayed a deeply entrenched form of dynastic politics, concentrating power within a select circle of family members and close allies. Nepotism was pervasive, with family members occupying key government positions and exercising significant influence over business sectors. This consolidation of power and resources echoes Suharto's Indonesia and Marcos's Philippines, where family networks secured monopolies over economic assets. In both Suharto's and Marcos's regimes, family members amassed vast wealth, benefiting from government contracts and state resources.
Similarly, Hasina's loyalists and family became wealthy through opaque and often illicit means, a pattern that has been increasingly exposed through media investigations following her departure from power. The concentration of economic and political control within elite circles fueled public discontent, exacerbating frustration among ordinary citizens who felt excluded from governance and economic opportunities.
In efforts to maintain power, Hasina staged several disputed elections that lacked genuine voter participation. The abolition of the constitutional caretaker government provision effectively eliminated impartial oversight, allowing her regime to engineer electoral outcomes. This mirrors Ben Ali's Tunisia, where constitution was amended and elections were manipulated to give him overwhelming victories-sometimes claiming over 99% of the vote. Mubarak in Egypt also secured his rule through controlled elections under the shadow of emergency laws, while al-Bashir in Sudan relied on military loyalty to win elections. Across these regimes, sham elections maintained a façade of democracy while entrenching autocratic rule.
Freedom of expression and dissent were heavily curtailed under Hasina, as independent media faced constraints, and opposition activists were systematically targeted. This strategy bears resemblance to Mubarak's Egypt, where emergency laws empowered security forces to suppress political opponents, often involving torture, arrests, and restricted freedoms of the press and assembly. Mubarak's State Security Investigations Agency (SSIS) operated with brutal efficiency, creating an atmosphere of fear similar to the environment fostered under Hasina's governance. Al-Bashir and Ben Ali also leveraged extensive security apparatuses to control narratives and stifle dissent, preventing genuine opposition from gaining traction.
The Hasina administration's exploitation of economic resources echoes Suharto's and Marcos's regimes, where crony capitalism enabled their families to secure immense fortunes. Transparency International estimated that the Marcos regime siphoned off billions, illustrating the magnitude of government corruption, while Suharto's children controlled lucrative business monopolies. In Bangladesh, the Hasina clan's networks also accumulated massive wealth through business and government ties.
Although no direct successor from her family has been officially designated, Hasina's consolidation of power and grooming of her son Joy bears striking similarities to Mubarak's grooming of his son, Gamal, and the Marcos family's attempts to maintain political influence. Even after their downfalls, these dynastic families often retained influence: the Marcos family successfully re-entered Philippine politics in recent years with Bongbong Marcos's rise to the presidency, and Suharto's family continued to wield power in Indonesia long after the fall of the patriarch. This persistent influence demonstrates the enduring legacy of dynastic politics, which remains a formidable challenge to Bangladesh as well.
The Challenge Ahead
Overall, the Hasina regime's authoritarian governance in Bangladesh had striking similarities with many of the world's most notorious despotic regimes. All these regimes shared the same despotic playbook -- nepotism, electoral manipulation, economic exploitation, and harsh repression of opposition. They all concentrated power within tight familial networks, enriching loyalists and cronies while undermining democratic institutions and fostering inequality.
What is most alarming, however, is the persistence of these autocratic structures even after regime collapse. While these despotic leaders may eventually fall, the institutions, networks of influence, and ideologies they built often remain entrenched, obstructing meaningful democratic progress. The dynastic rule and crony capitalism that have become hallmarks of authoritarian regimes create a resilient legacy, leaving behind a system of corruption and mismanagement that endures long after the leaders themselves are gone. In Bangladesh, dismantling these entrenched networks and paving the way for genuine democratic reform will be an immense and complex challenge. The road to progress requires confronting not just the remnants of the Hasina regime but also uprooting the deep-rooted structures that have enabled its survival.
Dr. Dowlah is a retired Professor of Economics and Law in the United States. Currently, he serves as the Chairperson and Executive Director of the Bangladesh Institute of Policy Studies
(www.bipsglobal.org)
© 2024 - All Rights with The Financial Express
