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.

That the BNP chief Khaleda Zia would not be directly involved in her party's activities or politics has been a moot point since February 2018, when she was jailed on corruption charges. BNP's failed movement to release Khaleda from jail seemed to further ensure that her days in politics had indeed come to an end – although the matter has made headlines recently, thanks to the contradictory comments made by the ruling Awami League leaders. With the next parliamentary election less than a year away, the matter has understandably gained much attention.

Khaleda Zia's legal rights notwithstanding, the BNP, which is effectively the main opposition camp in Bangladesh, smells a rat in all this. Party insiders suggest that the ruling party is intentionally reviving the issue as a topic of debate. The ruling party leaders, on their part, counter that they have no intention of bringing the issue to the fore, but have just explained what is written in the executive order on the basis of which the 77-year-old BNP chief walked out from jail on health grounds.

Read more

Debate if Khaleda can do Politics: Her health more pressing question

The debate on whether Khaleda could come back to politics began when senior Awami League lawmaker Sheikh Fazlul Karim Selim said on January 26 that she had been released from prison "with an undertaking" not to get involved in politics. It took a new turn when Law Minister Anisul Huq and Agriculture Minister Abdur Razzaque said she could indeed make a comeback to the country's political scene, but not contest elections, only to be countered by Information Minister Hasan Mahmud and Road Transport and Bridges Minister Obaidul Quader.

Amid this debate, the BNP has decided to be extra cautious. With the election round the corner, any mistake could cost them dearly as the party has been out of power for three consecutive terms. In the last two elections, they took different approaches that brought them the same outcome: nothing.

There are at least four possible scenarios for which the BNP suspects the Awami League has intentionally revived the Khaleda Zia issue.

First, the BNP has been rather successful in their street campaign to push its 10-point charter of demands, including a general election under a non-partisan interim administration. Many were sceptical about the party's organisational strength to wage any such campaign. Many even mocked the party for thinking of a campaign on the streets. But the BNP proved everyone wrong and has been running a successful campaign with wide public support, challenging the ruling party with huge rallies. The recent discussion about Khaleda, according to BNP insiders, is to throw the party off its game; the street campaign will be defused as leaders would get busy talking about the party chief.

Second, there is a "pressure" on the government to hold an inclusive and credible election. Without the participation of the opposition BNP, the next election would not be an inclusive one. So, the issue of Khaleda's engagement in active politics could be a ploy to get the BNP to come to the table for talks.

Third, the party fears that if Khaleda Zia becomes active in politics, the government may suspend the executive order that allowed the former premier to get out of jail. The government might claim that since Khaleda is active in politics, she must be in good health, and hence must go back to jail.

Fourth, since Khaleda has been in jail, her elder son and the party's Acting Chairman Tarique Rahman has been at the helm of the party. The current campaign has also been taking place under his leadership. Those who don't like Tarique's leadership within the BNP, however, have no option but to go along.

Read more

Protest Programmes: BNP plans to get back momentum

The party, so long as it is under Tarique's leadership, is adamant about not joining the polls under the Sheikh Hasina government. So, if that section of leaders brought Khaleda back to politics, it would create enough of a buzz for the old guards to rally around the former prime minister. That would challenge Tarique's leadership within the party and, at the same time, it would be possible to send Khaleda back to jail, and split the party and bring a section of the party to the election to make it inclusive.

Whatever the case may be, the BNP leadership has decided to remain quiet for now. What is almost certain, however, is that in politics, one does not get a second chance to seize the initiative. And the BNP appears to have lost its chance. The party leaders could well have tested the waters with a countermove soon after the law and agriculture ministers' comments. What if they had mentioned that Khaleda would speak to the press shortly? Or that she would address a public meeting remotely from her home? What would have happened? At best, she would have had half an hour that would be the most covered and most watched news event in quite some time. At worst, she would be sent to jail and the BNP would have another reason to take to the streets with a stronger resolve for the 10-point demand. What is certain is that it would have tested the ruling Awami League's sincerity or resolve.

The BNP's current risk-averse behaviour is not conducive to running a successful campaign. Electoral politics needs quite a lot more pluck.

Mohammad Al-Masum Molla is chief reporter at The Daily Star.

It is a fundamental principle of justice that any person accused of a crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. This is to ensure the legal rights of the accused throughout a trial. The case of jailed BNP leaders Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir and Mirza Abbas appears to be a contravention of that principle. Their bail petitions in a case filed over the December 7 clash between BNP activists and police have been rejected for the fourth time now.

As we know, since that clash, hundreds of leaders and activists of the BNP and its front organisations have been arrested. Mirza Fakhrul, the party's secretary general, and Mirza Abbas, a member of its standing committee, were arrested in the early hours of December 9, on charges of inciting violence. While these arrests follow the well-established political strategy of rounding up opposition activists after any clash, one expects the judicial process to follow its own course and take decisions impartially. However, the repeated denial of bail to Fakhrul and Abbas raises concerns about that process.

Read more

AL's strategy of intimidation may no longer be working

To be clear, we're not commenting on the merit of charges brought against them. Their guilt or innocence is for the court to establish. But until that has happened – and so long as they're not flight risks, which they are not – they deserve to get bail like everyone else. Importantly, their names were not even in the First Information Report (FIR) of the case in which they were implicated, while two other BNP leaders – Amanullah Aman and Abdul Kader Bhuiyan – whose names were there in the FIR of the same case were already granted bail by another court. Why this discrepancy? Why different bail decisions in the same case? Are we to accept a breach of legal principles here, and presume them guilty until proven innocent? Who will account for the time they are kept behind bars if they are eventually proven innocent, or if this case drags on indefinitely, which most political cases tend to do?

Read more

Pursuit of peace through violence?

We're talking about two top leaders of our main opposition party. Both are veteran politicians, hold high ranks in their party, and have had ministerial portfolios during BNP's last term in office. They are also reportedly sick, leading to the court directing jail authorities to provide them with proper treatment. Their social status and physical conditions alone would have merited a bail consideration. Unfortunately, in recent years, there have been many instances of bail denials in cases involving rival politicians and government critics. Should we see them as a mere coincidence, or is there any external influence behind such decisions?

We hope the judiciary will reconsider the bail petitions of jailed BNP leaders. It will only help its image and credibility among the public at a time when the judiciary is facing a challenge to establish rule of law amid a complex interplay of legal loopholes, institutional barriers, lack of resources, and intense political pressures that are making justice difficult to deliver. We hope it will rise to that challenge.