The recently deposed Awami League government left a sordid track record. Its decade and half long reign (2009-August 2024) witnessed rampant corruption, violent and ruthless suppression and repression of opponents, and a questionable mutiny in the para-military force, BDR that resulted in the murder of fifty-seven army officers. There is credible suggestion that Awami League’s deposed leader Shiekh Hasina bartered country’s sovereignty to India to stay in power and thus it came has no surprise that in the face of the mass uprising the leadership of the deposed ruling party including its leader, Sheikh Hasina fled to India where they are safely ensconced since.
Far from being repentant of the wrongs they had committed, that led to their ouster, Sheikh Hasina and her loyalists have branded the July/August uprising a conspiracy and said to be planning revenge.
The Awami League question
It is against this backdrop that as the post-July/August 2024 Bangladesh is inching towards democratisation and preparing for a free and fair elections in near future, and the leader of the Interim Government has indicated that along with all registered political parties the Awami League will also be allowed to participate in the ensuing general elections, a large segment of people demanding that given its consistent criminal behaviour Awami League should be disallowed from participation in the forthcoming election and the party be banned altogether, just as “the NAZIS & Fascists were banned & for the same reason Bangladesh Awami League should be banned.”
Others have been a bit conciliatory who argue that “I want justice first, none of those killers and autocrats have been sentenced yet. Most of them were given safe exit, out of the country. I want justice first. If proper justice can be achieved then I have no problem with Awami League coming back in reformed way.”
Then there are those who believe that “BAL (Bangladesh Awami League) and good person are mutually exclusive” ideas and thus banning the party is the natural option. Some however believe that there is no need to officially ban Awami League for given the party’s despicable track record, it would die its own death, “Remember the Muslim League, which had spearheaded the vigorous movement for a separate homeland for the Muslims….Didn’t the party enjoy the overwhelming support of the people before and after independence in 1947? But because of the folies of its leaders (nothing compared to what the Awami League did), their popularity dwindled in quick time and the party almost died, rejected by the people. Even if the AL is not banned, it is destined to fizzle out…. Outright banning will not do any good, except for creating more tension” and therefore, “Let it die a natural death!”
So, what is the verdict – should Awami League be banned or be given another opportunity to redeem itself by repenting and apologising and reforming and more importantly, by assisting the Interim Government to bring to justice its leaders who face criminal charges including charges of mass murder? Can Awami League be trusted? As they say, past indicates the present as well as the future – let us appraise.
Appraising Awami League
Here is a brief history of Awami League especially its role in pre-liberation and post liberation Bangladesh:
- Awami League and its leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman championed, single-handedly the cause of full autonomy for the erstwhile East Pakistan that morphed into the liberation war of 1971 that led to the liberation of Bangladesh (1969-1971).
- Awami League and its leadership did well to secure international recognitions for the newly liberated Bangladesh; consolidated its existence as an independent functioning state through the promulgation of the 1972 Constitution that underpinned democracy, secularism and socialism as country’s governing parameters and held Bangladesh’s first parliamentary elections in 1973.
- So far so good but soon Bangladesh under the leadership of its Father of the Nation Sheikh Mujibur Rahman witnessed rapid moral deteriorations that included elections rigging, extra-judicial killings of the opposition, corruption and nepotism and mismanagement of a famine that killed thousands and worst of all, the country transited from parliamentary democracy to a one-party rule – BaKSAL – where Awami League itself was banned by its supreme leader, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.
- Awami League’s initial dark phase (January 1975-August 1975) did not last that long – a violent and tragic coup ended it all with a new beginning that among other things, witnessed banning of BaKSAL and thanks to General Ziaur Rahman, one of Bangladesh’s transformative leaders, Awami League was revived in 1976 and its exiled leader, Sheikh Hasina, the daughter of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was invited to return to Bangladesh from India where she took refuge after the August 1975 coup to actively participate in the country’s politics.
- Accordingly, Sheikh Hasina took over the leadership of the Awami League and remained its leader and active in politics until she and her government was overthrown in August 2024.
- Bangladesh experienced a brief return to genuine parliamentary democracy during 1990-2007 until Awami league returned to power in 2009.
- During Awami League’s 2009-2024) reign Bangladesh witnessed significant infrastructure development, GDP growth and poverty reduction though at the same time, the country also experienced gross regressions in transparency and accountability in governance, denting of democracy, proliferating institutionalised corruption, loot and plunder of national exchequer, ruthless and brutal suppression and repression including enforced disappearances, extra-judicial killings of opposition and curtailment of freedom of expression. These acts of human rights abuse and debt-led development dulled if not put to question much of 2009-2024 Hasina governing period’s ‘development’ accomplishments.
In summary, Awami League, as a political party reveals following trends, some are inspiring and some, not so inspiring:
- Awami League championed the cause of autonomy for the then East Pakistan which thanks to Pakistan establishment’s arrogant handling led to the liberation war and emergence of Bangladesh.
- An interesting aspect of the Awami League is that it is the most avid advocate of democracy, only when in opposition but once in power, it uses its authority to stifle democracy for autocracy (1975; 2009-2024)
- Indeed, the Awami League uses democracy to come to power and then uses democracy to kill democracy: (i) abolition of parliamentary democracy and transition to one party, BaKSAL rule (1975); and (ii) abolition of the caretaker system, paving the way to rig elections with impunity and march towards autocracy (2009-2024).
- As a party, Awami League is a rabble rouser that made hatred its political capital and when in government, used repression and patronage distribution as its strategy to stay in power and more recently, bartered country’s sovereignty to an external entity to entrench itself in the seat of the government.
- Another redeeming feature of Awami League its supporters support the party and its leaders unquestionably such that it gets away with murder, literally so much so that Awami League looks less a political party and more a cult where its supporters put the party ahead of the country and the leader ahead of both, the party and the country.
So, given its addiction to abuse, should Awami League be given the opportunity to reform itself and join the ensuing democratic process? Some have argued, “The Awami League’s road to recovery lies in self-reflection, ideological recommitment, and rebuilding trust with the people.”
However, if past record is any guide, ‘reflection’ is not one of Awami League’s strongest points.
The remedy – keep crooks out!
At the root of Awami League’s and for that matter most political parties’ problem is not the party nor the party’s constitution but people that run political parties. Most are run by people of doubtful characters.
A recent UN study has shown that you may have world’s best system but if you have crooks running them, systems will be crooked. Take for example the case of the US – same constitution and same party and yet under Abraham Lincoln America looked and behaved very differently from that of Trump’s.
So, what is needed is not simply good systems but provisions that prevent crooks from entering good systems. In this regard, South Korea’s integrity check system, called the Personnel Verification System (PVS) that undertakes integrity checks of politicians and heads of government departments including those of the police and the army chiefs prior to their appointments is a good example to consider. Since its introduction a couple of decades ago, the PVS has ensured that in South Korea the crooks are prevented from entering the systems and that only the competent and the honest are appointed to the high positions, political and government. Introduction of the PVS has helped South Korea keep systems, political and government, clean.
In the context of the above, it is suggested that the Interim Government (i) introduces reforms that compels political parties to democratically elect the leaders and office bearers and that these party elections are held under the supervision of an independent election commission; (ii) introduces provisions integrity checks such as that of South Korea’s PVS that help keeping the corrupt and the crooks out of political parties; and finally, (iii) de-registers all the current registered political parties and asks them including Awami League re-register under the new system.
It is expected that the reformed governance of political parties including the introduction of the PVS like integrity checks of office bearers have the potential to improve the quality of the political parties and by extension, governance of the country.