In Bangladesh both types of distortions have taken place right from the beginning as a result of which the state of Bangladesh has not got off the ground according to the letter and spirit of the constitution. For state building, both letter and spirit are essential because in the absence of the latter the former becomes a formality shorn of substance. An overview of the political history of Bangladesh from its birth to date may give an idea about the trajectory of state building. It will be seen that it has been a continuous record of subversion to keep the state de-touched from the blue print i.e. the original constitution.
An overview: First of all, it should be pointed out that the original constitution, the blue print for state building, was not full proof in so far as it failed to take into account the interests and aspirations of all citizens irrespective of their caste creed and race. With reference to one of the four basic principles viz. nationalism only Bengali nationalism was mentioned which immediately caused disaffection among non-Bengali ethnic groups, the adibashis. In respect of rule of law there were many cases of extra judicial killings of political elements of radical ideologies during the rule of Sheik Mujibur Rahman. This set a precedent and served to prepare the mindset of police to give short shrift to due process of law in bringing alleged offenders to justice. The formation and organisation of a paramilitary force known as Rakkhi Bahini directly under the prime minister was another example of enforcing bespoke law and order, bypassing the rule of law. As regards democracy, the first general election held under Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1973 saw only candidate from his party, Awami League, elected to the parliament which brought allegations of vote rigging. Parliament, the most important organ of state through which the voice of public is represented, became a rubber stamp, making claim of hating a democratic system hollow. The final and grievous blow to democracy was dealt when one party rule under the state-owned BAKSAL was promulgated, abolishing all other parties. The closure of all newspapers except the state-owned ones made the totalitarian nature of the state complete. By the time Sheikh Mujib was assassinated on August 15 in 1975, Bangladesh was anything but a democratic state, the most important of the four basic principles of state. As regards socialism, the basic state principle in importance next to democracy, though all industries and business firms were nationalised, appointment of administrators on political considerations saw most of them either mismanaged or hollowed out due to corruption. In spite of generous food aid by bilateral and multilateral agencies to alleviate the sufferings and deprivations of the war-affected people, particularly in rural areas, hundreds of thousands died of starvation in the famine of 1974. Corruption by partymen and officials were responsible for this man-made tragedy, even though non-cooperation by America was cited as the main reason. August 15 was a landmark, though an unfortunate one, in the history of Bangladesh in as much as it marked the end of a chapter, a period that saw vacillation of the state between a presidential and a parliamentary form of government and absence of democracy and rule of law. During the first three and a half years in its history, till 15 August 1975, Bangladesh could hardly be seen as having made a beginning in state building.
Military regimes: The end of Mujib era saw a brief spell of parliamentary democracy under the guidance of army officers who had brought Mujib’s autocratic rule to a bloody end. This interregnum which saw a semblance of democracy was done away with when General Ziaur Rahman declared martial law abolishing parliament. For a time all political parties were banned and media was tightly controlled. During Zia’s rule there were several military uprisings all of which were put down ruthlessly with an iron hand. Before long General Zia floated a political party of his own and allowed other parties to function, following in the footsteps of Ayub khan he evidently wanted to carve out a political career. A referendum was held which overwhelmingly confirmed his rule with a voters’ turn out that beggared belief. In the general election that was held subsequently General Zia’s party won hands down, as was expected. For appearances’ sake there was an opposition in the parliament which was happy to do the master’s bidding. The government that was formed had both military and civil members as ministers. Though martial law was withdrawn the army controlled the government from behind and therefore it was anything but a civil government. General Zia changed the constitution replacing socialism as a state principle and thereby ushered in the system of free market economy. This saw a process of privatisation and encouragement of a private sector in the economy that has continued till now. Rule of law was subordinated to the overarching goals of the regime in power. Media and judiciary had very little independence.
The assassination of General Ziaur Rahman on May 30 in 1981 saw another ‘man in horseback’, General Ershad, taking over state power ushering another phase of martial law beginning from 1982. Lured by power, he too, floated a political party after sometime to be in harness indefinitely under a managed democracy. His government was also a mixture of civilians and army officers. As during president Zia’s rule, judiciary and media functioned under the shadow of the army even after martial law was withdrawn. Arrests and extra-judicial killigs made short shrift of rule of law similar to what happened during the previous regime of Zia. After eight years of managed democracy General Ershad had to leave power in the face of a popular movement.
The election that took place in 1991 under a caretaker government was fair and free and for the first time a truly elected party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party ( (BNP) under Khaleda Zia formed government and Awamo League under Sheikh Hasina assumed the role of opposition in the parliament. All the organs of the state, the parliament, the judiciary and the government and other accoutrements of state like media, intelligentsia functioned independently during this time. In the next election held under the caretaker government in 1996 was also free and fair and this time Awami League took office though there was a minor hiccup at the time of handover of power. By and large, the period from 1991 to 2001 can be said to be the golden period of democracy in Bangladesh when the organs of the state worked untrammelled by any interference or manipulation from behind. Though no love was lost between the two major parties, Awami League and BNP, a working relationship emerged to minimise friction and thwart the functioning of the state.
When BNP changed the age of retirement of judges of High Court to ensure that the next Chief Advisor of the caretaker government would be one of their choice, the system of holding independent election unravelled. The Awami League launched a vicious campaign against the manipulated caretaker system which led to intervention of the army in 2008. A caretaker civilian government set up by the army arranged general election after two years of non-democratic rule. The Awami League won the election and this time set about politicising all organs and institutions of the state to establish its stranglehold over the entire state apparatus. The party abolished the caretaker system in the constitution and held all subsequent elections to parliament under its government in power. All organs and agencies in the state starting with judiciary, civil service and police were filled with party loyal. Media critical of Awami League and its government were muzzled or banned outright. Making mince meat of rule of law people were arrested without warrant and incarcerated without specific charges. The unfortunate ones simply disappeared, police denying having arrested them. The students’ wing of the party started a veritable reign of terror in university campuses, setting up their torture chambers. Whenever crowd of protesters came on the street they were dispersed by police using the muscle power of the students wing as auxiliary force.
BNP also is guilty of many of these excesses and irregularities when it was in power but Awami League having been in power for over 15 years in a row became more ruthless and highhanded whose culmination was seen in July last during the students movement for abolition of quota in government job. Drunk with the arrogance of power, the Awami League party and the government was bent upon suppressing the students movement with an iron hand using all the armed elements of the state. Fired up by feelings of brute power, engaging in dialogue to resolve the problem was farthest from their mind. When opposition parties like BNP joined the students’ movement the Awami League government branded the whole movement as terrorist-driven aimed at overthrowing the government. When the government was willing to have a dialogue with the students it was too late as more than 300 had died. The students replaced their nine-point demand with one-point, calling for the resignation of the autocratic government. The rest is history.
Substance: The overview of the political history of Bangladesh shows that state building was hampered and thwarted from the very beginning because of the design of political leaders and their parties to perpetuate their power. To this end little or no space was given to opposition parties to carry on their normal activities. The electoral system was so manipulated and rigged that opposition parties had no chance of winning in election. Arrests and imprisonment of opposition leaders further circumscribed their freedom of activity. To ensure autocratic power there was no separation of power and parliament and judiciary were beholden to the executive branch (government). All institutions and agencies like police, civil service, election commission, anti-corruption commission were politicised, filling their posts with party faithful. Students’ wings, labour wings etc. were organised to suppress any opposition along with police force. Elections were held in the absence of main opposition parties or with arrangements to make them lose while ballots were counted.
Both BNP and Awami League committed the excesses mentioned above but Awami League excelled in all these misuse and abuses of power because it was in power for the longest term and that too continuously. Because of the long tenure and politicisation of all institutions it became so arrogant and intolerant that even the genuine demand of the students was not heeded seriously. Rather, the initial reaction was to suppress their movement with brute force. In short, the subversion of state-building took place under various regimes, civil and military, because of the all consuming desire to have unlimited power.
Secondly, once tasting the magic of power leaders and their party went wild to enjoy and exercise it for good by hook or crook. So, both the process of obtaining power and the ways and means of holding onto it led leaders and parties forget about promoting democracy, separation of power, rule of law, accountability to people and social and economic justice. It is not fortuitous that the current students’ movement has morphed into one calling for a system with no inequality. In other words they are saying that state building will not be completed unless the state with all its organs works towards the making of a society that is economically egalitarian and legally just. Only having the trappings of a state with the usual organs and the motion of going through a democracy through occasional elections is not enough to fulfil the promise of independence, they seem to be saying.
The substance of a state that delivers on the promise, written and unwritten, of the constitution requires much more which has eluded the grasp of the leaders belonging to the major parties that was in power. Either they were not aware of these or did not care to know, pre-occupied as they were with their own interests or interests of their peers. At the risk of using a hyperbole it can be said that our independence has been corralled by self-serving urban elites representing different professions and led by political leaders. Irrespective of the party in power (or under military rule) the urban elite has managed to forge an alliance that place their interests above all others in society. To sustain this power brokers have made no stone unturned to manipulate the state machinery to their advantage. And that is the tragedy of Bangladesh.
What is to be done: A nation of 170 million cannot give up hope. A renewed and concerted effort has to be made now for building the edifice of the state according to the basic principles of the original constitution. Secularism should be restored with the added provision of ‘freedom of worship for people of all faiths’. In place of ‘socialism’ in the original constitution, ‘social and economic justice ensured by guarantee of basic needs by government with tax from the wealthy’ should be substituted. For general election there should be provision in the constitution for a caretaker government with the last chief justice as the chief advisor. No article of the constitution should be allowed to be amended or dropped by votes in the parliament. This should be permissible only by 90 (ninety) per cent vote in a referendum. The executive branch should be accountable to the legislature and ministers can be censured and recommended for dismissal by majority of members. Judiciary should be independent and appointments to Supreme Court should be vetted by majority of parliamentarians representing all parties. Similarly, the chief election commissioner, commissioners of anti-corruption commission, chairman of public service commission and members and inspector general of police (IGP) should be vetted by parliament. All candidates to senior posts in the government should face hearing in parliament before being confirmed as is the practice in America. Following America, any senior government official can be called for hearing on any occasion of public importance. Since police has become highly controversial for politicisation and excesses committed in the discharge of their duties, an ombudsman constituted by parliament should oversee their activities and submit reports to the parliament at the end of the year. Recruitment of police should be vetted by the parliament with recommendation of the ombudsman. Civil officials dealing with money (NBR for example) should be required to submit their annual income statement to a separate ombudsman appointed for the purpose. He will be required to submit report to the parliament annually. The anti- corruption commission should require all civil officials and political leaders to submit statement on their annual income and check if these match with their known sources of income. To ensure rule of law, the power of police to arrest on suspicion should be done away with as should the provision of remand by police. These are black laws, a throwback to the British colonial rule, and as such should have been abolished long ago.
Police are seen to be rude and cruel when dealing with a crowd or even an individual. An offender can be arrested or fined citing his/ her offence. But beating them up or behaving rudely not only gives the impression of sadistic behaviour, but is violation of human rights. All such cases should be considered as culpable offence and dealt with accordingly. Very few government offices is suffused with the spirit of public service and police department comes worst in this respect. The recent public wrath against police is not only for their politicised actions but also because of the image they have come to have as tormentors. It is through bureaucracy that government delivers service and there is no exaggeration in the prevailing view that almost all government offices have distinguished themselves with red tapism, rude behaviour and rent seeking verging on extortion. Police is only tip of the iceberg.
The great failure of the Awami League has been that in spite of being in power for over 15 years (and five more years previously) they have failed in the healthy pursuit of democratic culture and establish a system of day to day good governance through government departments and functionaries. The party thought that democracy meant holding general election even if it is without the participation of the major political opposition party. It rode roughshod over the demand of the opposition for a caretaker government to conduct election. Granted, it was the major opposition party that had earlier made caretaker system questionable through their machination. But that could not be any justification for the abolition of the system for good.
In the area of development of infrastructures the record of Awami League is solid even though those have been at high costs. But their record in the promotion of democratic culture is zero while in respect of governance their legacy is an inefficient and corrupt bureaucracy. When a peon of the former prime minister could have earned Tk 400 crores and this is mentioned by herself one wonders what went on higher up under her watch. Was there one Benazir or Motiur in the regime that has been made to kiss the dust? If wormwoods like them and many others ate into the vitals of the economy how could the state of Bangladesh has a chance of being erected on solid foundation?
Now that a new era has dawned after a cataclysmic upheaval there is an opportunity to start building the state of Bangladesh in earnest. Such opportunities do not present themselves often. Let it not be said that we squandered the one before us nonchalantly and through neglect.
hasnat.hye5@gmail.com