How much one should expect from a new political party?

A new political party has emerged from the streets. This party was born under the leadership of young individuals who spearheaded the July mass uprising. Now, a critical question arises: Is this truly a political party? How well does its agenda align with the political aspirations of the people of Bangladesh?

The party's leadership comprises individuals with diverse and often opposing political and philosophical ideologies. Its structure and manifesto prioritize the establishment of a "Second Republic." The party's convener, Nahid Islam, has shared a written statement outlining their vision and goals. In his statement, he said,

"We believe that the July 2024 mass uprising has initiated our struggle to establish the Second Republic. Through the drafting of a democratic new constitution, we must eliminate all possibilities of reinstating constitutional autocracy. One of our primary objectives is to draft a new constitution through an elected constituent assembly. In our Second Republic, we will build a strong defense system to protect national interests. Rebuilding and democratizing collapsed political, social, economic, and cultural institutions will be our political priority. Only through this process can we emerge as a fully democratic state."

This statement provides a clear understanding of the party’s political agenda. Nahid Islam further emphasized,

"We are neither pro-India nor pro-Pakistan; rather, our party will solely represent the people of Bangladesh."

This statement is particularly relevant in the context of Bangladesh’s 53-year-long political history. Since the 1971 Liberation War, Bangladeshi politics has been divided into two camps: pro-Liberation and anti-Liberation. This division stemmed from the geopolitical reality of the time. India played a direct role in supporting Bangladesh’s independence, while Pakistan, being the oppressive force that East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) fought against, naturally opposed the liberation movement. As a result, the political forces that led the war were seen as pro-India, while those opposing independence aligned with Pakistan.

This divide persists today. Given this backdrop, Nahid Islam’s attempt to break free from the India-Pakistan dichotomy and focus solely on Bangladesh’s interests presents a significant challenge for the new political party.

Political transformations in any country occur within historical continuity. Completely breaking away from that continuity is never possible. Professor Abdur Razzaq's seminal research, Political Parties in India, remains one of the most comprehensive analyses of political transformation in the Indian subcontinent. His study demonstrates that independent India never saw the true development of political parties representing public aspirations. Instead, India’s political landscape was dominated by special interest groups, global power alignments, familial control, and the strategic use of religion in politics. Consequently, no structured political party emerged to truly represent the people.

Professor Razzaq’s research also can be reflected in the politics of independent Bangladesh. From the very beginning, the ruling Awami League quickly transitioned from a mass-based political party into a family-dominated entity. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s contributions to the Liberation War were unparalleled. The war was fought under his leadership, but soon after independence, the party sidelined many key political figures who had actively participated in the struggle. A significant moment of internal division occurred in July 1972, when two factions of the ruling party’s student wing, the Chhatra League, held separate conferences. Mujib attended the faction controlled by his family members, particularly Sheikh Fazlul Haque Moni. This split led to the formation of Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal (JSD) on October 31, 1972, marking the beginning of deep divisions within pro-Liberation political forces.

This division played a crucial role in popularizing the “pro-India vs. anti-India” rhetoric in Bangladesh’s politics. The JSD, composed of former Mujib loyalists, opposed India’s influence, while those loyal to Mujib aligned with Indian interests. This division created an opportunity for anti-Liberation political forces to re-enter politics under the banner of anti-Indian nationalism. The consequences were profound—instability in the military, the assassination of Mujib and his family, and the eventual rise of military rulers.

One such ruler was Ziaur Rahman, a sector commander during the Liberation War. On the night of March 25, 1971, he was the first to announce Bangladesh’s independence on behalf of Mujib over the radio. This gave him immense popularity when he later formed a political party. However, due to successive coups and counter-coups within the military, his party, the BNP, struggled to establish a clear political ideology. He, too, was eventually assassinated.

His successor, military ruler Hussain Muhammad Ershad, formed his party, the Jatiya Party, purely as a vehicle to consolidate his power. It was not an organic political movement but an extension of his authoritarian rule.

In 1990, a mass uprising ousted Ershad, creating an opportunity for national political unity between the Awami League and BNP. However, the 1991 elections reignited their fierce rivalry. Both parties claimed ownership of the Liberation War’s legacy, distorting history for political gain. Sheikh Hasina attempted to portray the Liberation War as solely a family achievement, sidelining other war heroes, which led to widespread misrepresentation of historical facts.

Ziaur Rahman, during his presidency, had taken significant steps to document the history of the Liberation War, commissioning researcher Hasan Hafizur Rahman to compile a seven-volume documentary record. Unfortunately, after 1991, misguided statements from BNP leaders diminished the credibility of this effort.

Both the Awami League and BNP’s reckless political maneuvers prevented the establishment of national unity based on the spirit of the Liberation War. Over time, numerous political parties emerged, including Islamist parties, royalist factions, and military-backed “King’s Parties.” However, none gained lasting traction in national politics. Even leftist parties, despite their intellectual rigor, failed to establish mass appeal and often merged into mainstream parties.

Given this historical context, what should we expect from the new political party formed by the leaders of the July uprising? Some critics view it as another “King’s Party,” a term used for parties created by authoritarian rulers. However, this conclusion may be premature. Unlike previous King’s Parties, this one emerged from a mass uprising rather than a top-down power structure.

However, the July uprising had a fundamental weakness: it lacked a clear manifesto before the movement gained momentum. The uprising was spontaneous, fueled by public outrage over Sheikh Hasina’s governance. Many people, regardless of ideology, joined the movement simply to overthrow an oppressive regime.

Some analysts argue that had the movement’s leaders immediately taken an oath at the Shaheed Minar to form a national government, the uprising would have been a success. However, such a move would have been premature and possibly disastrous, given the ideological differences among the movement’s key figures. Premature power grabs could have led to internal conflicts, derailing the uprising entirely.

Therefore, our expectations from this new political party should be measured. They should be given time and space to develop their political agenda. Their focus should not be on quick electoral victories but on establishing a clear, well-structured political program for systemic reform.

One crucial point the new party must remember: The Awami League and the Liberation War are not synonymous. The Liberation War was a collective struggle of all Bangladeshi people, cutting across political and ideological divides. While the Awami League played a leading role in 1971, its subsequent deviations do not diminish the war’s significance.

The new political party must never position itself against the Liberation War. No political force in Bangladesh’s history has succeeded in doing so. If the party fails to recognize the war’s foundational role in the nation’s identity, it will make a grave strategic mistake.

Ultimately, their success will depend on their ability to forge national unity, prioritize Bangladesh’s interests, and establish a coherent political framework for the future.

Rased Mehedi: Editor, Views Bangladesh.