The fall of Awami League on August 5 following a mass uprising marked a historic shift in Bangladesh's political landscape, but it has also exposed deep cracks within the BNP, as long-suppressed party leaders, activists, and supporters scrambled to fill the void left by their rivals. Over the last month and a half, we have had various reports on the disruptive effects of this transformation. Turf wars, factional infighting, extortion business, and political capture of public sector by BNP-affiliated groups have made frequent headlines, despite stern warnings and occasional disciplinary measures by party high-ups. This is not only hurting its credibility—it also risks derailing the broader vision of reform that drove the uprising.

Read more

Reforms needed in political parties and the electoral process in Bangladesh

Since August 5, according a report by this daily, at least 14 BNP members have lost their lives, eight of them linked to factional clashes. The latest incident occurred on Friday, in Chattogram's Changaon area, where a Jatiyatabadi Jubo Dal activist was stabbed to death during a clash between rival factions. The same day, there were heavy clashes between two BNP-linked groups in Chandpur, leading to the injuries of at least 30. Earlier today, a clash between two BNP factions in Narayanganj left 10 injured. Such events have become quite regular, often centring around the control of extortion rackets in various sectors. These violent power struggles mirror what plagued Awami League while it was in power, with over 150 of its leaders and activists killed mostly in internal feuds since its 2018 election win.

Read more

Stop political capture of the public sector

The question is, why can't BNP control its activists? And how sincere is it in this endeavour, really? True, the party has recently expelled several local leaders for engaging in such violent and often illegal power exercises. BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir's statement that repeating the mistakes of Awami League may bring the same fate for BNP suggests an awareness of the changing reality. But official actions have not been convincing enough for the grassroots leaders and activists, especially because of their confidence about returning to power when the next election is held. This is nothing but opportunism, fuelled by a sense of impunity that the party has failed to dismantle.

Read more

Stop extortion in transport sector

Historically, politics in Bangladesh has been held hostage by the patronage system that defined the interaction between parties and their grassroots enablers. While this has richly rewarded some parties, it has brought nothing but misery for citizens. For BNP to really stop its errant members and to credibly support the present campaign of reforms, it must first demonstrate its ability to reform itself. The changes it envisions for the state must start within its own rank and file. The creation of a democratic, transparent and accountable party structure—with zero tolerance for indiscipline, infighting, crimes, or any illegal capture of public institutions—will only enhance its standing as a party committed to genuine reform, not just power.

Advocate Sultana Kamal, a human rights activist and the founder president of Manabadhikar Shongskriti Foundation, speaks with Eresh Omar Jamal of The Daily Star about Bangladesh's 12th parliamentary election and its ramifications for the country's political and governance landscapes.

With BNP boycotting the January 7 election, and some of the parties who participated in it bargaining with Awami League for seats beforehand, how would you describe the latest election?

I have been giving my comments on the election which was held on January 7 for months. Now that it has already happened, to me, the event of January 7 cannot be called an "election" by any definition, let alone "a participatory election." We all know the arrangements for distribution of seats between the contesting parties were settled amicably beforehand. The election was held in the name of fulfilling a constitutional obligation, which in reality turned out to be a ritual participated by friendly contestants.

By boycotting the election, didn't BNP give AL a free ride? One could argue that the ruling party created a repressive environment for the opposition prior to the election, but by terming its movement as a movement to "oust the government," what sort of a reaction did BNP expect?

Yes, BNP did.

As I kept saying since the 2014 election, BNP made a big (fatal for them) mistake by not participating in the election. True, they did take part in the 2018 election. But by then, they had already lost their position as a political party strong enough to influence the national political psyche. Insisting on terming their movement as a movement to "oust the government," without posing a viable alternative to the nation, was nothing but a blunder on their part. BNP must have expected considerable support from the general people in the context of Awami League's extremely repressive rule, lack of good governance, and democratic deficit. But its failure to provide a convincing picture of a better future did not yield the expected result for BNP.

Given the election results, who do you expect will be the parliamentary opposition? Will that also be decided by AL? And what effect will all this have on the future of Bangladesh's politics?

It is obvious that there will be no effective parliamentary opposition for at least the next five years as, without a few exceptions, all in the parliament are Awami League's people. It's an open secret that non-Awami League contestants were not only allowed to participate in the election at the wish of the AL leader, their winning a seat, too, was dependent on the same factor. An opposition perhaps will be declared officially as a matter of rule. But there is no reason to believe that it will be without AL's knowledge. I am afraid I don't feel very optimistic about Bangladesh's future under the given condition. However, I will definitely be happy if I am proved wrong.

How would you rate the performance of the Awami League government over the last five years? And do you expect any changes this term?

The Awami League government over the last five years concentrated on heavy, visible infrastructural development, in which they showed considerable success. It was during this period that Bangladesh qualified to graduate from being a least-developed country to a developing one. It has also made some progress in attaining a few of the SDG goals in the fields of women's empowerment, enrolment of female students, extending community health services, etc. Bangladesh's GDP grew impressively. The number of ultra-rich in society increased at unprecedented speed. But at the same time, according to eminent economists, the country's economy plunged into uncertainties. This, compounded with a repressive, exploitative, and unethical political atmosphere, created insecurity for people in social, public, and personal spheres. Though Awami League consistently claimed to have run the country according to the spirit of our Liberation War and the ideals of Bangabandhu, ironically, strengthening of democracy, rule of law, zero tolerance for corruption, and respect for human rights of all, and efforts to create a common humane social culture, seem to have disappeared from their agenda.

As said by many, over the past few years, Bangladesh has been divided into two different "societies." One for the rich and the advantaged, the other for the disenfranchised and disadvantaged. This directly contradicts with our constitutional directives as well as what we stated in our Declaration of Independence. In short, Awami League rulers have failed to rise up to their own declared ideals.

However, during the election campaign, Awami League's leader Sheikh Hasina urged the people of Bangladesh to look at their mistakes leniently. I hope the Awami League government this time will take care not to repeat their past mistakes, which go against the spirit of our Liberation War and create an atmosphere of crisis for democracy and good governance.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.

Coming a year before the general election, and nearly a year after the formation of the incumbent Election Commission, it is natural that the six by-polls held Wednesday would be viewed against the wider political backdrop. It was, therefore, frustrating to know how little things have changed, despite the relative lack of violence, which would have been something to look out for under different circumstances. It's quite evident now that any changes, or promises of changes, made over the past year or so only cemented the status quo, which doesn't bode well for our electoral future.

Read more

Calling the by-polls 'free and fair' dims hope for 2024

If we're to pick a word to summarise the by-polls, it would be "absence" – absence of voters, absence of interest from the wider society, absence of strong safeguards against irregularities, absence of main opposition BNP, whose lawmakers' resignation from parliament had led to the by-polls. Voter turnout was poor in all the six constituencies. As per an estimate, only about 28 percent of voters showed up, in a trend that has been persistent throughout all local elections and by-polls held over the last few years. The predictable nature of election outcomes, and the lack of trust about the neutrality of responsible state departments, seem to have caused ennui and despair among the people.

Read more

Two by-polls, 29 years apart – yet so similar?

It seems almost futile to ask why the Election Commission is failing to address voter apathy despite repeated appeals from election observers. The EC, after the latest by-polls, again stuck to its "peaceful and well-organised" narrative, even though we have received reports of various election-related irregularities from a number of constituencies. The EC's failure to recognise that the mere appearance of elections is not enough is really alarming. We need fair and participatory elections. And we need the EC to restore the trust of all voters and opposition parties alike.

Read more

Will pre-election politics remain peaceful or become violent?

Another major concern about the by-polls is the "disappearance" of the main rival of the eventual winner in the Brahmanbaria-2 by-poll. This by-poll – which saw a voter turnout of less than 16 percent, the lowest of all constituencies – has been in the news ever since the winner, expelled BNP leader Abdus Sattar Bhuiyan, was backed by the ruling Awami League, which didn't field a candidate there. Abu Asif Ahmed, an independent candidate, has been missing for about a week now. Which makes us wonder: why is nothing being done to find him? What message does it send to the political opponents of the ruling party? And how long will the EC refuse to address the concerns of the opposition parties?

Read more

Is the EC fighting an unwinnable war?

The culture of fear, distrust and criminality that still plagues our electoral system must be removed, and the ruling party must play a leading role in this. Lack of violence in one election means nothing given how political violence and repression continue to occur in every other sphere. If anything, the recent by-polls have shown that we have remained stuck in the same spot for too long, and the authorities must allow genuine reforms to break this status quo. They must help create a level playing field for all parties, and restore public trust in the function of the electoral system.

On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Jatiya Sangsad, five-time lawmaker and president of the ruling alliance partner Workers' Party, Rashed Khan Menon, talks about his expectations from the parliament in an interview with Mohiuddin Alamgir of The Daily Star.

You recently said at the House that the standard of Jatiya Sangsad was on a continuous decline. Why do you think so?

Not only is the standard of Jatiya Sangsad on a decline, but its character is changing too. In the past, mainly active politicians would become members of parliament (MPs), but now businessmen are becoming MPs. It's not like we didn't have businessmen in our parliament before, but they were primarily politicians – they took part in movements and went to jail. In fact, now businessmen are the majority in the House. As a result, no substantive discussions take place in parliament.

A researcher once said that during a one-hour session in parliament, people's issues are discussed for three minutes, while the rest of the time is spent praising the ruling party, its leader and others. This wasn't the case in the past. In the past, even during the Pakistan period, parliamentarians including Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman used parliament to talk about people's issues. These days, we speak about some development work to please the local constituency, but that is not done in the proper way, in my opinion.

Recently, the government increased the prices of fertilisers. Ideally, questions would have been raised about the decision to raise fertiliser prices. In reality, although the government is saying that the price hike was done in accordance with the international market, we know the decision was made in line with the IMF conditionalities.

Is there any discussion on the growing income inequality in parliament these days? Some of us are trying to raise these issues, but the rest are saying nothing.

Be it Bangabandhu or other politicians of that era – they all spoke of these issues. Even the parliaments that were dominated by Awami League members featured these discussions.But now, these issues are not discussed.

Article 70 of the constitution, which deals with vacating the seat on resignation or voting against a political party, has become a big barrier to freedom of expression, which is another reason why the parliament's character has changed. Even though the prime minister has said that this is a tool to curb floor-crossing in parliament, has it been able to stop that from happening? We have seen in the recent past how members have moved from BNP to Awami League and have even become ministers.

Read more

‘The House in decline’

Do you think Article 70 should be scrapped?

No, we are talking about a reform of the system. There should be three kinds of whips in parliament. For general topics, the discussion will be open, and when the government thinks some issue is important, the second whip will be called upon. The third and final whip will be that an MP will not be able to vote against the party in the cases of defence, budget, and votes of no confidence.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of Jatiya Sangsad. How has its journey been?

The journey of our parliament has been turbulent. The framers of our constitution introduced a parliamentary democracy. But we first stumbled during the 4th amendment of the constitution, when a presidential system was put in place. The parliament became paralysed during the regime of Ziaur Rahman, who made amendments and an anti-Liberation War individual was made the leader of the House. It failed to play an effective role then. The parliament of 1979, even though it had no power, was lively.

After parliamentary democracy was restored in 1991, the sessions of parliament became lively again; we even put forth a proposal of no confidence against the agriculture minister. We tabled a proposal of no confidence against the government. We put forward a demand for the ban of Jamaat. Even the parliament of 2008 was quite lively, because it had a substantial presence of the opposition.

Our parliamentary culture did not grow due to the tradition of boycotting the parliament.

The parliament is at the centre of institutionalising democracy. It holds public opinion and expectations. How far has this principle been upheld?

It is written in our constitution that the people will yield authority over the country through their representatives. Theoretically, this seems okay. But practically all laws and budgets are formulated by the bureaucrats, and the MPs' role is very little. MPs can't change even 0.1 percent of the budget if the government is not willing.

Then what is the role of parliament? In India, after the budget is proposed, it goes to the standing committee, where it is discussed and examined thoroughly, a report is produced, and that creates the basis of discussion over the budget. These practices are non-existent in our parliament.

The question-answer sessions faced by the ministers of the government have also become futile as well. On many occasions, the relevant ministers are absent.

Many MPs show a lack of interest in the process of law enactment, although it is their primary role. What is your take on that?

MPs' involvement in legislation faces hindrance because of the existence of Article 70. I have not seen any difference of opinion from the treasury bench when a law is passed. It has turned into a majoritarian system, which is why discussions don't take place when it comes to enacting laws. Barring a few exceptions, discussion does not take place even in parliamentary committees, which have the power to change laws.

As the majority of the MPs are businessmen, it is also a reason for not having discussions during the process of law passage. Regarding the matter, I want to quote President Abdul Hamid, who symbolically said the number of lawyers in parliament decreased to such a level that we might need to hire experts to enact laws.

Read more

Who killed democracy in Bangladesh?

For issues such as the soaring prices of essentials, gas, electricity are soaring, widespread corruption, allegations of breach of rights and even extrajudicial killings against law enforcement personnel, etc, our parliament has a role to play in making the executive branch accountable. How far has it been successful to this end?

The process of making the executive branch accountable was present in the past, but now it has reduced significantly. There are various ways to hold the executive branch to account, such as point of order, question-answer segment, different kinds of motions, and having discussions on matters of urgent public importance. But, other than the question-answer segment, which itself is often tabled, none of these are in practice. The way parliament is conducted these days is detrimental to holding the government accountable for its actions.

The opposition in the House has a role in making parliament effective. Many say the current opposition is "a friendly opposition." How do you evaluate the current opposition?

It is not possible to make the parliament effective with such an opposition. Being a treasury bench member, I try to speak on public interest issues. If anyone tries to talk, they still can discuss.

You have participated in the last two elections as part of an alliance. It seems that the Awami League leaders have already started seeking votes in favour of the party symbol. What is your thought on that as an alliance partner?

Regarding the next election, we have spoken with the prime minister and she has said she wants to participate in the election as a coalition. She has already been asking for votes for the Awami League, but as the leader of the alliance, she will also need to seek votes for the Workers' Party or for JASAD.

Is there any crack in the alliance?

There could be some struggle in the politics of alliance. But I think that alliances have become marginalised over time.

There is a saying in the political circuit that whenever the Awami League falls in trouble, it seeks refuge in the 14-party alliance, but at other times, it does not listen to the opinions of the alliance partners.

Look, when we formed the 14-party coalition, it was decided that we would move together, go to the polls together, and form the government together. I think they did not act accordingly. Giving importance to the partners only in times of one's need is not the right approach.

Another election is approaching. What should an effective parliament be like?

We proposed for a parliament based on proportional representation. If that is not possible, then some space should be offered to the opposition and other parties so they can organise among themselves and come to parliament. A parliament should be a mixture; it can't be dominated by majoritarianism. A parliament is formed by the speaker, the government, and the opposition. If that pyramid is followed, then it can become a proper parliament.

Transcribed and translated by Azmin Azran.