In simple terms, democracy means the rule of the people. If there is a massive disparity with regards to ownership and power structure, and if class, gender, ethnic and religious discrimination dominate social relations, then the idea of the rule of the people cannot be realised. The struggle to achieve that goal is the essence of democracy.

However, the primary condition of democracy is that it should at least operate on the basis of the consent of the people – consent that is expressed through elections. Let us look at where Bangladesh is at in this regard, after 50 years of existence. The movement for democracy in Bangladesh has been going on for decades. Under Pakistani rule, the Liberation War was a result of this desire for democracy. Even after the war, the struggle continued. The fight against martial law in the late 70s and 80s was also a fight to establish democracy. In the 90s and even now, this fight has endured.

It is a matter of great misfortune, as well as of disappointment and uncertainty, that democracy in Bangladesh is practically absent now. A system of governance must depend on the people to remain accountable, transparent, and responsible. Even if the process of being accountable to the people is erroneous, it should be corrected through people's participation and elections. There is effectively no such thing in Bangladesh right now. If we look at any number of institutions, be that the administration, law enforcing agencies, universities or the judiciary, they are all suffering from a lack of transparency and public scrutiny. Corruption has become the rule of the day. All the commissions, including the Human Rights Commission and the Election Commission, have made themselves ornamental.

Read more

Public's very existence depends on the democratic process

Public universities have now also become an extension of party rule. We have seen government appointed vice-chancellors (VCs) of different universities being accused of corruption, irregular appointments of teachers, destroying the educational environment by patronising criminals, and nurturing ruling party student organisations as hired goons to suppress dissenting voices. As a result, universities, places that are supposed to be centres of free thinking, that are supposed to harbour democratic sentiments, are now unable to establish themselves as proper institutions.

Even in society, because of the absence of democratic processes, all sorts of crimes – murder, rape, grabbing of land, waterbodies and forests, corruption – are going unchecked. It's as if anyone has a free pass as long as they are connected with the powers that be. When criminals get patronage from higher up the chain, the judiciary too becomes non-effective. On the other hand, any sort of outcry or protest against misrule and corruption is being met with force, and activists are being attacked by the police as well as ruling party goons. They are also being harassed with the use of the Digital Security Act. Enforced disappearances, torture in custody and false cases have become instruments to run the show unopposed.

Starting from the centre and going all the way to remote areas, we see a tendency of zero accountability. Corruption, robbery, defaulting on bank loans, bad deals with high commissions by powerful people, price hikes, rape and sexual harassment, grabbing properties of the poor and the marginalised people, money laundering – all of these are allowed to happen because of the absence of a democratic process.

The absence of the democratic process is also allowing the government to undertake megaprojects such as the ones in Rampal, Matarbari, Banshkhali and Rooppur, which are tremendously harmful to Bangladesh not only from an environmental standpoint but also from a financial one. From the very beginning, these projects have suffered from gross irregularities, and a lack of accountability and transparency. The consent and the participation of the people should have been the principal requirement before large projects such as these are undertaken. People should have been informed about the risks and potential issues. None of these things were done, and any voices that were raised on this issue were quickly stifled. A culture of fear was created to implement mega projects to give profits to certain local and foreign groups at the cost of the people and the environment.

Read more

Column by Mahfuz Anam: No govt has ever fallen for being self-critical

If even a shred of democracy existed, the level of opposition that Rampal received from the public and the experts would have seen the project scrapped. If a shred of democracy existed, the universities would not have been in this condition where knowledge is held hostage to partisan politics. If the democratic process existed even in the slightest, the justice system would have a minimal basis to stand on. If the democratic process existed, we would have seen the people's representatives contribute in some meaningful way to society.

The condition of the youth in our country, the plight of women, and the fact that people of different ethnicities and religious identities are now even more at risk – that they are being dispossessed of their lands and attacked at a greater frequency – all comes down to the absence of a democratic process.

This is why, for people of all ethnicities, religions, classes, and ages, the struggle for a democratic process, in a personal and collective sense, has turned into a struggle for existence.

Transcribed and translated by Azmin Azran.

Anu Muhammad is a professor of economics at Jahangirnagar University.

The draft Cyber Security Act (CSA), 2023, which is supposed to replace the controversial Digital Security Act (DSA), 2018, has been termed by many as "old wine in a new bottle." A quick review of the draft law, made available on the website of the Digital Security Agency, suggests that this law can in fact be called "old wine in the same old bottle" with slightly reduced alcohol and a new label!

Let me explain. The nine sections of the DSA identified as a threat to independent journalism and freedom of expression are sections 8, 21, 25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 43 and 53. The draft CSA contains all these sections, through which the new law criminalises certain kinds of information and news publication and expression of certain thoughts and opinions in the same way that the DSA does. The definitions of crimes under this law are also as vague as ever. The only difference is that some offences that are non-bailable under the DSA have been made bailable, punishments have been reduced for some offences, and the provision of additional punishment for repeated offences has been omitted. Out of the nine sections that curb freedom of expression, seven sections have been amended in terms of punishment and bail, while no changes have been made in two sections.

Read more

Cyber Security Act will not stop criminalising freedom of expression

For example: Section 8 of the DSA, which empowered the director-general of Digital Security Agency and law enforcement agencies to remove or block digital content through Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC), has been retained in the CSA. Similarly, police's authority to search and arrest without warrant under Section 43 of the DSA has been kept intact under Section 42 of the CSA.

There is a 10-year jail sentence under Section 21 of DSA for propaganda against the spirit of the Liberation War, father of the nation, national anthem or national flag, which has been reduced to seven years in the CSA. Punishment for "hurting" religious sentiments under Section 28 has been reduced from five years to two years and the offence has become bailable.

Five years' jail term for defamation under Section 29 of DSA has been replaced with a maximum fine of Tk 25 lakh. However, according to the law minister, if the accused fails to pay the fine, he or she will face a jail sentence of three to six months. Section 31 of CSA proposes a five-year imprisonment instead of seven years for destroying communal harmony. Under Section 32, the punishment for breaching official secrets has been reduced from 14 years to seven years. While the proposed CSA will replace the DSA, the proceedings and trials of all existing cases under the DSA will continue.

Read more

We don’t want more people in jail for their posts on the internet

In this situation, how will it be assured that the experience of repealing Section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act, 2006 will not be repeated? In the face of criticism, the government repealed Section 57 in 2018, but all its provisions were included in four separate sections (25, 28, 29 and 31) of the DSA with reduced punishment. Punishment under Section 57 was 14 years maximum, which was reduced to 3-10 years under different sections of the DSA. At that time, Law Minister Anisul Huq had reassured us that Section 57 would not be retained in the DSA.

The reality is that, despite this reassurance from the law minister, cases under the DSA increased significantly. According to the Centre for Governance Studies (CGS), from 2012 to June 2017, there were 1,417 cases under the ICT Act, of which 65 percent were under Section 57. However, within just two years of DSA coming into effect, the number of cases under this law exceeded 1,000, most of which were filed under sections 25 and 29, mainly for defamation. Before the DSA, such cases were filed under Section 57 of the ICT Act. Till December 31, 2022, the total number of cases filed under the DSA stood at 7,664, of which 5,512 are currently under trial.

As harassment and oppression begins with the filing of cases, reducing the punishment in the CSA or making certain offences bailable will not solve the core problem. A fundamental flaw of the DSA was criminalising defamation, spreading false information, hurting religious sentiments, etc – acts that are not criminalised in any civilised democratic country. If any article or statement seems objectionable to someone, it is dealt with by counter-argument, not by putting the writer or orator in jail.

Like the previous laws, the CSA also may not reduce the number of lawsuits as any person can sue anybody for defamation, spreading false information, hurting religious sentiments, etc. Harassment and oppression under the DSA began before trial as the accused would have to spend day after day in jail before trial. So, what benefit will the CSA bring an accused charged under this law? Even if the offence is bailable, will there be any guarantee of getting bail? In the draft CSA, six sections are still non-bailable. If any non-bailable section is added at the time of filing the case, the accused will have to suffer in jail.

Writer Mushtaq Ahmed, arrested in May 2020 on charges of spreading rumours and carrying out anti-government activities, was denied bail six times. He died in jail after nine months of being locked up. Khadijatul Kubra, a student of Jagannath University who was arrested in August 2022 on charge of spreading anti-government statements online and tarnishing the country's image, has been in jail for almost a year, also without any trial. Although the High Court granted her bail, it was stayed in the Supreme Court, and her bail hearing has been adjourned for four months. What benefit will the CSA bring detainees like Khadija?

Read more

A repackaged DSA brings renewed worries

As harassment and oppression begins with the filing of cases, reducing the punishment in the CSA or making certain offences bailable will not solve the core problem. A fundamental flaw of the DSA was criminalising defamation, spreading false information, hurting religious sentiments, etc – acts that are not criminalised in any civilised democratic country. If any article or statement seems objectionable to someone, it is dealt with by counter-argument, not by putting the writer or orator in jail.

No one would have any objection if a cybersecurity law was enacted to deal with cybercrimes without infringing freedom of speech, such as illegal access and hacking of computers and digital devices, digital or electronic fraud and deception, theft of personal information, etc.

Therefore, the DSA should be completely repealed and a new law should be enacted only to combat specifically defined cybercrimes. The sections that threaten independent journalism and people's freedom of expression should not be included in the new law. Also, all pending cases under the DSA should be quashed and the accused suffering in jail should be released unconditionally.

Kallol Mustafa is an engineer and writer who focuses on power, energy, environment and development economics.

The recent visit to Bangladesh by UN human rights chief Michelle Bachelet attracted quite a significant amount of interest among rights activists globally, as it came after her controversial trip to China in May. She went to China despite opposition from rights activists and the United States, which expressed concerns that she would not have unfettered access to the people subjected to alleged torture and intimidations. Later, on June 15, she told the Human Rights Council that she was unable to meet the detained Uyghurs. Some of these activists expressed concerns that her Dhaka visit could be used by the government, who faces criticism for widespread abuses and repressive laws, in claiming that it had nothing to hide.

Prior to her Dhaka trip, nine human rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch (HRW), issued a joint statement on August 10, urging the UN rights chief to publicly call for an immediate end to serious human rights violations, including torture and disappearances. They claimed that if the high commissioner failed to clearly condemn these abuses and seek reform, the ruling Awami League could use her silence to legitimise its abuses and undermine activists. These groups alleged that "hundreds of Bangladeshis have been forcibly disappeared, tortured, and killed since the government led by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina first took office in 2009."

They have also appealed to the UN High Commissioner that she should encourage the Bangladesh government to create an independent commission of inquiry to investigate all allegations of enforced disappearances, torture, extrajudicial killings and custodial deaths, and offer the support of her office to form such a commission. The joint statement said she should make clear to the government that the ongoing security force abuses would jeopardise the deployment of Bangladesh troops to UN peacekeeping operations. When the high commissioner met representatives of civil society and the victims' families, they pressed her for a UN mechanism to investigate these allegations as, according to them, our judicial system has lost its independence and become politicised.

It is well-known that about a dozen requests from special rapporteurs and experts from various UN mechanisms have been pending for years, as those visits are seen to be something akin to fact-finding missions. So, it was a curious development that the government was eager to host the outgoing High Commissioner Bachelet. Why did the government want such a visit?

Read more

DS View: Embarrassing the PM to the core

Foreign Secretary Masud Bin Momen explained it well to Prothom Alo, "Bangladesh is one of the candidates for the United Nations Human Rights Council membership election. Therefore, there is a need for discussion and communication at various levels of the council. Many have misconceptions and complaints about contemporary issues such as disappearances, extrajudicial killings and digital security laws. All the complaints about these things reported in the media are not correct. As a result, we hope that the high commissioner will understand the situation better by talking to the law minister, the foreign minister and the home minister. If there is a violation of the rules in these matters, what measures we have taken will be presented to her. From this point of view, we see this visit as an opportunity to explain our position"(August 14, 2022).

Expectations on the part of the government and the rights groups could not have been more contrasting. And the statement made by Bachelet at the end of the visit – perhaps the only public one – now makes clear whether or how much of those conflicting expectations have been met. Bachelet's statement commends the government's achievements in socioeconomic development, poverty eradication, increasing access to education and healthcare, reducing women's and children's mortality, and increasing access to food, water and sanitation. But not once did the nine-page statement mention Bangladesh as a democracy. Instead, it noted, "Democratic and civic space, as well as effective checks and balances and accountability, are essential as Bangladesh aims for the next levels of development." Perhaps the argument made by some civil society representatives that the government had lost its democratic credentials through disenfranchising its citizens during the last two parliamentary elections was too convincing. And it could be the reason that prompted her to call for national dialogues among political parties and others ahead of elections.

The most important intervention, on her part, in the conflicting claims and counterclaims on extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and tortures was her call for an impartial, independent and transparent investigation into the allegations and the support she offered from her office, the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR) in this regard. Discarding ministers' narratives that deny these grievous violations as propaganda by political opponents, she said, "Various UN human rights mechanisms, including the UN Committee Against Torture, have been raising concerns for several years." She also spoke about the involvement of the Rapid Action Battalion (Rab) in those alleged abuses and violations. Against the backdrop of US sanctions against Rab on the same charges, her concerns add further gravity to the issue. She also called for inviting the UN Working Group on Enforced Disappearances to visit Bangladesh, arguing that it would show a commitment to decisively address this issue. Her insistence that Bangladesh should ensure it has a robust system in place for the careful human rights screening of security personnel is a reminder that it needs to think about the future of UN peacekeeping missions.

Michelle Bachelet's disclosure that her office has put forward recommendations to the government for essential amendments to the Digital Security Act (DSA) to remove barriers on freedom of expression and ensure international human rights standards and obligations means that the government needs to act soon. She also reminded the government of the importance of working closely with civil society and the UN to ensure that the proposed data protection law and the OTT (over-the-top) platform regulations meet international human rights standards.

Prior to her visit, BNP and the families of missing persons demanded a UN investigation following the release of an investigative documentary on enforced disappearances by Sweden-based news portal Netra News, titled "Secret Prisoners of Dhaka (Aynagharer Bondi)." Though some ministers' reactions suggest that the government has realised its diplomatic blunder, it could have been much worse had Bachelet agreed to the demand for initiating the OHCHR's own investigation mechanism. Continuing to be in denial may ultimately lead us to such an undesired end.

Kamal Ahmed is an independent journalist and writes from London, UK. His Twitter handle is @ahmedka1

On July 27, 2022, two students from Dhaka's Brac University – Sajid Asbat Khandaker and Sourodip Paul – made Bangladesh the first Asian country to win the World Universities Debating Championships (WUDC). Since the Serbian capital city hosted this year's debating competition, it was named Belgrade WUDC 2022. At the final phase of the tournament, there were four competing teams – two teams on each side – and each team comprised two debaters.

After all the debaters spoke, the judges ranked the teams based on their performances, and the team comprising Sajid and Sourodip topped all others. On their way to this glory in the eight-day competition, they outranked the debating teams from Princeton, the National University of Singapore, Oxford, Harvard and other prestigious universities. It is undoubtedly a landmark achievement for Bangladesh in university-level debating. Needless to say, Sajid and Sourodip made their speeches in English, which is not their first language.

Unfortunately, as Prof Ali Riaz of Illinois State University pointed out in an essay published in Prothom Alo on July 30, 2022, this great cerebral feat has not received adequate media attention in Bangladesh. This was a good occasion of national pride and celebration for us as Bangladeshis. But surprisingly, we were not sufficiently thrilled by this achievement.

Perhaps one reason for this lukewarm reception is that the very concept of debate is antithetical to the sociopolitical order that has developed in Bangladesh in recent years. Debate is a form of dialogue that involves claims and counterclaims, and rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. Freedom of speech and equal opportunity are indispensable elements in any debating exercise. In the Belgrade WUDC, each of the four teams and each of the eight team members had equal amounts of time and opportunity to make and defend their arguments.

Read more

Bangladesh wins debate ‘World Cup’

This notion of equality seems to have disappeared from, or has become less relevant to, the current political culture of Bangladesh, where dull top-down monologues rather than robust dialogues with the people have become the norm. The country seems to have embraced or tolerated restrictions on free speech. Legislations like the Digital Security Act (DSA) and other pre-emptive and punitive measures against dissent have placed the citizens on the slippery slope of fear and self-censorship. Debate in the public sphere, which is part and parcel of the democratic process of a country, is largely damped or downplayed (if not completely silenced). One may say that, metaphorically, Sajid's and Sourodip's debating verve and vigour overseas represented the latent, suppressed debating potential of the entire population of Bangladesh. What could not be exercised inside the country found an intensely passionate expression in Belgrade – hence, the success.

In Bangladesh, the establishment narrative dominates the political system. Let me give an example to illustrate this point.

I live outside my country, but the pull of patriotism brings me back home again and again. Therefore, Dhaka's Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport is a common air travel destination for me. The airport is my first and last encounter with my motherland during every visit.

Even when I was teaching at Dhaka University, I was a frequent flyer. I went overseas for research purposes and conference presentations. One day, my teacher and colleague Prof Khondakar Ashraf Hossain (1950-2013) jokingly said to me, "You should have your residence near the airport!" What I am trying to say is that the Dhaka airport has remained a very important place for me and, in what follows, I would like to describe what I have often seen on the roadside near it.

As one rides from the airport to Tongi, and then to Mohakhali, one sees that the roadsides are full of banners, posters and billboards carrying photos of ruling party leaders and their political propaganda. During my trip to Bangladesh in early 2020, I looked for a single poster or banner of the opposition parties on the roadsides near the airport. There was none. This year, I saw only a few posters carrying images and messages (complaints) of non-ruling parties among hundreds of those of the party in power. The visual or pictorial fodder around the country is not very different.

Now, what do the ruling party people want to achieve through such 'exhibitionist' (visual) dominance on the roadsides? If the target audience is the people of the country, they don't achieve much. This is because most people know all too well which political party is popular in the country and how much freedom of expression they enjoy as citizens.

It is worth mentioning here that the Dhaka airport is also the first place that helps foreigners – who work in Bangladesh or come to visit the country – form their opinions about the country, its government and citizens. In other words, the airport and its adjacent areas give them the first impression about Bangladesh, and the monopolistic poster exhibition on the roadside near the airport probably amuses or bemuses them. This visual monopoly will tell them about the presence or absence of democracy, depending on their level of sagacity.

In my opinion, such roadside poster dominance does not give a good representation of Bangladesh as a 21st century nation. It only heightens the egotism and hubris of the affiliates of the ruling party and erodes public trust in the government. It does little in terms of increasing the prestige of the country or the government. What's more, it reveals the absence of public debate, making obvious the suppression of dissenting voices and opinions.

The authorities would have nothing to lose if they ensured a fair and inclusive climate and facilitated diversity of viewpoints. If the ideas and strategies of the ruling party are really better for the country, juxtaposing them against those of the opposition will only strengthen and further validate them. Conversely, reluctance to allow the opposition to speak freely will surely signal the inherent weaknesses of the government's policies and strategies.

Sajid's and Sourodip's debating success is understandably an outcome of a vibrant debating culture that Brac University has nurtured on its campus. The question now is whether this debating spirit will spill over into the wider society, and whether the victory will inspire full and fair debates of ideas and issues in the public domain beyond the campus of Brac University. Will the citizens of Bangladesh have a democratic space to freely use the rhetorical approach of what Prof Ali Riaz called "ethos, pathos and logos" in popular (political) debate? Is there a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel?

Lastly, we hope that Sajid's and Sourodip's stunning rhetorical feat will spark the spirit of debate in society. It will cultivate a culture of inclusivity which can override parochial concerns and lead us to the grove of free and fair discussions. In any event, we as Bangladeshis will remain tenacious in our hope and unfettered in our optimism, despite the present reality.

Md Mahmudul Hasan teaches English and postcolonial literature at International Islamic University Malaysia. Email: mmhasan@iium.edu.my

Between January 2020 and February 2022, more than 200 journalists have been implicated across Bangladesh under the draconian Digital Security Act (DSA), leading, in some cases, to involuntary disappearance and pretrial detention. 

In August 2021, the Bangladesh Police told me that they were not required to reveal the number of cases they filed, or the number of people they accused or arrested for online dissent under the DSA at any given time. In response to my inquiry under the country's Right to Information Act, they argued that the public disclosure of such information could "obstruct enforcement of the law." 

When information is denied to people and any attempt to expose truth by journalists is penalised by authorities, the state of freedom of expression in Bangladesh, including press freedom, is not hard to guess.

In February last year, writer Mushtaq Ahmed died in prison. He had been denied bail six times over a 10-month period and held without trial simply for criticising the government's response to Covid-19 online. Another inmate alleged that Ahmed had been subjected to torture. His case exposes how the DSA has been weaponised to cruelly target dissenting voices. 

During a meeting of foreign correspondents in December last year, Law Minister Anisul Huq assured those in attendance that reporters would not be arrested immediately under the DSA when cases were filed against them. Instead, they would be summoned and could seek bail from the court. His assurance arrived amid severe criticism of the law. This means that the government can bypass the law on a whim or make exceptions in order to target certain groups of people. This unnerving suggestion promotes exceptionalism and suggests that the rule of law is flexible and will not be applied equally to everyone. 

Just under two months later, state critic and journalist Zohurul Haque was arrested under the DSA, which showed that the authorities intend to use the law to target anyone who does not toe the party line. Under the pretext of combating disinformation, defamation and the "deterioration of law and order," the authorities have used the DSA to incarcerate journalists and cartoonists for months, many of whom are held without trial. Even children have been targeted.

According to the international human rights law, any restrictions placed on the right to freedom of expression must be necessary, proportionate and provided by laws to protect, for example, public health or national security. Using a criminal law to combat disinformation and defamation clearly does not meet these standards.

Government policymakers remain adamant that the DSA can effectively address disinformation on digital platforms. Instead of breaking away from past acts of repression, the authorities have drafted new laws to regulate personal data, mass media, social media and over-the-top (OTT) media services like Netflix and other digital platforms. Human rights defenders, lawyers, journalists, academics, film-makers and civil society organisations all fear that these laws will be used, like the DSA, to target individuals or content deemed to be anti-state or anti-government. 

The proposed Data Protection Act, for instance, gives authorities broad powers to access, control and process data without judicial oversight. This would make journalists and their sources vulnerable and would lead to heightened self-censorship as their information can be accessed by the authorities. The law would also exempt state agencies from being held accountable for violating people's right to privacy. Moreover, the authorities would use vague and overbroad descriptions, such as the need to protect the "spirit of Liberation War," "sovereignty of state" or "friendly relations with foreign states" to access private information in encrypted communications on personal devices, or to censor content on digital platforms.

This means that if someone expresses a critical view of the achievement of Bangladesh's Liberation War, or the country's relationship with another nation in a Facebook status, or even in a private message between friends on WhatsApp, that individual could be subjected to criminal punishment under the DSA, intrusive surveillance under the data protection law, or censorship under the digital, social media and OTT platform regulations. 

These laws and regulations are deeply problematic and clearly arbitrary in nature. To make the new laws fair and transparent, the authorities must broaden consultations to allow the concerns of numerous independent critics to be heard. Otherwise, many more individuals, including journalists, will continue to be punished under the DSA and the new laws for criticising powerful people and holding state institutions to account.

As we observe World Press Freedom Day today, Bangladesh's record remains poor. It ranks at the bottom of the eight countries in South Asia, having slid from 146 in 2018 to 162 in 2022 on Reporters Without Borders' global press freedom index. The repression legitimised under the DSA, and the newly proposed laws signal an imminent deterioration of press freedom. 

While the media and human rights and civil society organisations must play a role in lobbying for change, I hope politicians will also take concrete steps to critically and objectively review these laws, and ensure they fall in line with international human rights law and standards. It is, I am afraid, a case of now or never. 

Saad Hammadi is Amnesty International's South Asia Campaigner. His Twitter handle is @saadhammadi