Who would hold the political power in the future?

'Those who control Bangladesh's politics are inherently undemocratic and the standard of education and training of the ruling class here is very low.' New Age Editor Nurul Kabir came up with the observation on November 18, a day after ousted prime minister Sheikh Hasina was sentenced to death in a case of crimes against humanity, the first such case in Bangladesh's history in which a former prime minister has been sentenced to death. At the unveiling of a book by the late politician Barrister Moudud Ahmed, Nurul Kabir said, 'From the first day of the Bangladesh state to today, democracy has never existed.'

Among others, BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir also spoke at the event. While reminiscing about his prison time with Moudud Ahmed, Mirza Fakhrul said that he used to see Moudud Ahmed wake up early every morning. Then he would enter the library. He would sit there and write all the time. He would only come out during mealtimes.

In this context, Nurul Kabir said that in the presence of Begum Khaleda Zia and Moudud Ahmed, he once joked that Moudud Ahmed should be put in jail occasionally. Because most of the books he wrote were on the state and politics of Bangladesh while he was in jail.

Incidentally, within a few months of Bangladesh becoming independent through the Liberation War, out of the 34 members in the committee formed to draft the Constitution, 25 were indeed law students (Barrister/LLB/BL). One was a student of political science, one studied physics, one was a post-graduate in Bengali Literature while one studied Islamic History. Of them, one was a graduate, two were BA passes, and one couldn’t complete B.Sc and one was a doctor. Again, many of those who studied law also had degrees in other subjects. They studied law after graduating or completing a post-graduate degree in another subject. There was an idea, belief, and custom at that time that if you wanted to participate in politics, you had to study law. (Amin Al Rasheed, Songbidhan Pronetagon (সংবিধান প্রণেতাগণ), February 2024, Shilalipi Publication/p. 33).

However, Nurul Kabir's remarks on the quality of education and scholarship of many of those who became legislators of Bangladesh in the following years are true. Moudud Ahmed, Suranjit Sengupta, Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir, or Syed Ashraful Islam are rare among those legislators.

The people of Bangladesh have also seen such members of parliament who repeatedly get involved in reading a speech written on paper while standing in parliament. Many such members of parliament have had to be digested by the people of this country or the people of the country have elected such people as their most prestigious public representatives and legislators, who only praised the late national leader and the prime minister while delivering speeches in parliament. That is why the question has repeatedly been raised about who would hold the political power in the country and who would control the future politics.

How many of the youths, who are being called the future leaders, will actually be able to build a beautiful, democratic, tolerant, creative, and prosperous Bangladesh—this question has come to the fore after the July uprising. How ready are the youth of this time to shake off the regret that Mr. Nurul Kabir expressed since the beginning of the Bangladesh state that ‘democracy is absent’—this question also requires an honest analysis.

A word is always used about Bangladeshi politics. That is ‘stale’. The question is, who will build a beautiful, fragrant, and democratic country in the future, leaving this stale, smelly, and undemocratic politics behind?

One of the words that is being uttered the most after the fall of the Awami League government in the July uprising is ‘new Bangladesh’. A new political culture will surely develop in the new Bangladesh. But are there any signs of it?

The obscene words and phrases that the youth have used in the name of slogans in various processions after the movement are questionable not only for the new politics but also for the public interest. It is argued that these slogans are an expression of anger and resentment. The question arises, will the new generation of the new Bangladesh or the political language of the youth be built like this?

Sheikh Hasina, who was in power for 16 consecutive years, made incredible progress in the country's infrastructure, but she fell due to many specific reasons, including her inability to rein in corruption, shameless partyization in the administration, and turning the state into a family limited company. But the question is, are those who have sat at the center of power after her fall; those who are controlling state power and politics—able to offer better politics than Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League?

Is the horrific spread of political vendetta in the country after August 5 last year comparable to any other time in the 54-year history of Bangladesh? The horrific mob violence that has taken place or is still taking place in the country over the past year is not only in Bangladesh, but can any weak democratic country in the world find examples of this? Everyone knows who is leading this.

A section of those who are talking about a new Bangladesh and reforms have demolished the house at Dhanmondi 32, which is steeped in the memory of Bangabandhu, the architect of Bangladesh's independence, with a bulldozer. They set it on fire. A section of the youths who were chanting slogans for a new Bangladesh did not stop at destroying the statue of Bangabandhu, but rather showed the audacity to urinate on it. They are uttering insulting words about Bangabandhu. However, the July uprising was against Sheikh Hasina's authoritarian rule—the movement that was built on a small issue like quota reform in government jobs. But after the fall of the Awami League, i.e. Sheikh Hasina, in the uprising, it seems that the anger, resentment, and hatred of a large section of the people of the country are on Bangabandhu.

There is no denying that the Awami League turned Bangabandhu into their party property and made him a superhuman while praising him. But how much responsibility Bangabandhu himself had here—that too needs an honest analysis.

Whatever the argument, if the Awami League fell because it engaged in corrupt politics, then why will it be repeated now? How many houses of BNP-Jamaat people were set on fire during the Awami League's tenure, and how many hundreds of houses of Awami League leaders have been burned in the last year?

In the midst of corruption and looting, few people are less controversial, and do the attack and vandalism on the house of former President and Speaker Abdul Hamid and the murder case against him bear the hallmark of new politics?

If the Awami League has engaged in corrupt politics, then in whose hands will pure politics be inaugurated now? Are those in power now doing better politics than the Awami League or do they really want to do politics free from revenge and hatred? No. Rather, they clearly believe in the politics of elimination. Just as the Awami League has been trying to eliminate BNP and Jamaat from politics for many years, the same thing is happening with the Awami League now. So who will initiate the change?

Those who verbally denigrate Bangabandhu; question the most glorious achievement of the Bengali nation by giving a new narrative of the Liberation War; want to establish the narrative of Pakistan and their identified allies in this country, who were defeated in the Liberation War; those who want to build a grave by calling the constitution achieved through the Liberation War in exchange for the blood of three million martyrs a Mujibist constitution—what does a new Bangladesh mean to them?

After the fall of the Awami League, namely Sheikh Hasina, the path to building an ‘inclusive society’ by learning from their mistakes was supposed to be opened. But it did not happen. Instead, after August 5 last year, many were called fascists and harassed everywhere. Just as those with opposing views were previously labeled militants and Jamaat Shibir, now they are being labeled Awami League allies and fascists. Not only political activists, but also countless teachers have been humiliated by their children-like students. They have been offended. Many teachers at Dhaka University are still unable to attend class or are in some form of hiding. Such a terrible situation has never arisen before in the 54-year history of Bangladesh. Therefore, how safe is Bangladesh in the hands of young students who humiliate their fatherly teachers just because of their political beliefs and opinions is a very trivial question. How can people who cannot tolerate dissent build a new Bangladesh?

If they become even bigger fascists by removing fascists, then there will not be a new Bangladesh, but rather the system that will develop through this process is called 'neo-fascism'.

Amin Al Rasheed: Journalist and writer.