Whoever comes to power does not truly want democracy

Writer-researcher Mohiuddin Ahmad. At once a historian and a valiant freedom fighter. He is among those who have written, analysed and researched the most on the political context of post-independence Bangladesh. He is the only political writer in Bangladesh who wrote a book on the 1973 election titled The "Election of ’73". He also wrote "Red Terror: Siraj Sikder and Proletarian Politics", "The Anti-hero Sirajul Alam Khan", "Awami League or BNP – Which Way', "The Rise and Fall of Jasad: Politics of a Restless Time", among other works. He still continues to write on contemporary politics.

Recently, Mohiuddin Ahmad attended Views Bangladesh’s programme Editorial Dialogue with Rased Mehedi. The subject of discussion was Bangladeshi politics, particularly the political context after the Liberation War. He shed light on the ups and downs of the country’s politics. The interview was conducted by Rased Mehedi, Editor of Views Bangladesh. Today the third part of the four-part interview is published.

Rased Mehedi: Through the anti-Ershad movement, the Awami League and BNP achieved maturity in Bangladesh. This created a strong democratic stance in the political arena. From 1991 onwards, the quality of democratic practice that developed in Bangladesh politics was repeatedly disrupted. Was this by design or was it a failure of our politicians?

Mohiuddin Ahmad: Notice one thing, throughout the eighties, military rule or the anti-Ershad movement had begun. In that movement, not only all the political parties but also teachers, doctors, lawyers, journalists – all professionals together rose up against Ershad. At one point towards the end, newspapers were not even being published. At that time, through the mass movement, Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia emerged. However much we may say that BNP was created under state power, enjoying all privileges, and by using the intelligence agencies – all of this is true; but that BNP was broken apart by Ershad. Many in the BNP rushed to join the Jatiya Party. But reviving that BNP was Khaleda Zia’s contribution. I would say, although BNP’s founder was Ziaur Rahman, it was Khaleda Zia who gave it the character of a political party. She proved herself to be a successful politician.

In 1991, both Hasina and Khaleda were engaged in politics on equal terms; but Sheikh Hasina understood power politics a little better. Khaleda Zia did not. In the 1991 election, Khaleda Zia won a single majority and became the country’s first woman Prime Minister. How did this happen? Because in 1990, we saw a neutral interim government under Justice Shahabuddin. The election was held under that neutral government; but she did not insert it into the Constitution and rejected the demand for a caretaker government. Meaning, the very system from which she benefitted and became Prime Minister, she did not keep. She did not give it constitutional form. That is why a movement arose against her, and Sheikh Hasina led that movement – the movement for a caretaker government.

That means the politics of manipulating elections and clinging to power by force – which Hasina had mastered in the eighties – Khaleda Zia began to practise after 1991. Because once in power, an insatiable desire develops. We saw this in Khaleda Zia again after she came to power in 2001. She did everything, including manipulating elections so that someone of her choice could become the head of the caretaker government.

Rased Mehedi: In the history of Bangladesh, perhaps only once was there a peaceful transfer of power, in 2001. From then on, a trend of peaceful transfer of power had begun; but by 2006 that was gone. Which is why in 2006 an inevitable movement took place, and through that movement the caretaker government returned. But what we had seen under Justice Habibur Rahman and Latifur Rahman, we did not see again. In 2006, Iajuddin became President. Then through another arrangement, Fakhruddin Ahmed came. In 2008, through a massive victory, the Awami League came to power. Thereafter, the practice that Khaleda Zia had established in 1995 – bypassing the caretaker government to cling to power by any means – Sheikh Hasina did the same in 2014, 2018 and 2024. The question is, why did our politicians, despite having great opportunities, fail to make use of them? Why does the mindset arise that once anyone comes to power, it must be monopolised?

Mohiuddin Ahmad: Analysing this through political logic is very difficult. The two-party political system that began in 1991 through mutual competition, gave voters a choice if the caretaker system was in place: they could observe one party for five years, and if dissatisfied, vote it out and bring in another. We saw this in 1991, 1996, even 2001.

Now the problem is, whoever comes to power does not truly want democratic practice. We may say so in words, but deep down the urge is to monopolise power entirely and remain there for life. From this desire for lifelong power, BNP once opposed the caretaker government. And for the same reason, from the urge to stay in power forever, the Hasina government abolished the caretaker system in 2010. Because if that system remained, voters would have a choice – and you took away that choice. In 1975 too, you will see, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman left no constitutional scope for a change of government. Then how would change come? It had to come through an uprising. That uprising could be a mass uprising, or a military coup. What we saw in 1975 – we saw again in 2024.

In other words, Sheikh Hasina left no opportunity for regime change through a proper election. During her time, we saw three elections – 2014, 2018 and 2024. The 2014 election Hasina could legitimise, because BNP boycotted it. If BNP boycotts, then whether Awami League gets 100, 150 or 200 uncontested seats – BNP has no right to question it. Because they did not participate. Yes, they had put forward a demand, saying without it they would not join. At the same time BNP said they would resist the election; but they could not. As a result, ordinary people had to pay heavily. If you cannot resist by boycotting, then boycotting is useless. Then in 2018 BNP joined the election. Why? Because the Election Commission Act says if a party does not contest two consecutive elections, its registration may be suspended. So to retain existence as a party, it had to contest.

Then just before the 2018 election, Khaleda Zia was arrested and imprisoned. BNP went to the election without her. I do not know what negotiations took place behind the scenes, how many seats would be given or not; but in the end, the Awami League candidates did not want to give up their seats. Perhaps BNP might have been given around 100 seats, ensuring a respectable position – but that did not happen. BNP is not a party that deserves only six seats; but it ended up with six. Yet BNP still went to Parliament.

Anyway, many things we do not understand – why they did this, why they did not do that. Two elections in our country were the most disgraceful. One was the 15 February 1996 election, which was not needed at all. The other was the disgraceful election of 2018. About the 2024 election, is there anything left to say?

Rased Mehedi: Here is a question: especially after the 2018 election, the Awami League was no longer a party of ordinary workers. A syndicate formed of corrupt businessmen, favoured bureaucrats and opportunists. By 2024 the Awami League had completely disappeared from grassroots politics, middle-class politics and the politics of ordinary people, and turned into the government of a corrupt syndicate. That is why many in the Awami League supported and even participated in the July uprising. Did this not inflict a major loss on the Awami League in Bangladesh politics?

Mohiuddin Ahmad: The Awami League gradually turned from a political party into a monster. The party, the government and the state became one, in the hands of one person – Sheikh Hasina. Under a microscope the party itself could not be found. The party was gone, everything became Hasina-centric. At that time even in Sheikh Hasina’s press conferences, who would ask what question was decided beforehand. Those considered likely to ask awkward questions were not even allowed into the press conference. If someone did ask a question, Sheikh Hasina reacted furiously. We would often see Sheikh Hasina pressing a button and inaugurating two, three, four hundred projects at once. From universities to tiny culverts – she herself had to inaugurate them. Establishments were named after her family members – brothers, sisters, relatives, parents, in-laws. This familisation was so hideous, like the Mughal emperors. Everything had to be in the emperor’s name. Even on currency notes – from Tk 5 to Tk 1,000 – Sheikh Mujib’s portrait had to be there. Could there not be portraits of Rabindranath, Nazrul, Lalon, Hasan Raja, Bhashani, the four national leaders? Why must everything carry Sheikh Mujib? These were the things she did. I do not see such a practice in any democratic country in the world; if there is, that is a different matter. (To be continued)

Transcription: Shahadat Hossain Touhid