February 8, 2025, 3:00 am

Inclusive Elections and a Smooth Exit

Swadesh Roy
  • Update Time : Monday, February 3, 2025

No government in any country lasts forever, nor can it. Even in the past, when empires were established, they eventually fell. The highly regimented populations of China witnessed the rise and fall of dynasties like the Han and the Song. Similarly, in India, the Mauryan Empire of the indigenous rulers and the Mughal Empire, established by Babur from Fergana, all came to an end. In modern nation-states, where the primary source of power is the people, the tenure of any government inevitably reaches its conclusion at some point.

This is why in developed democracies, where governance is advanced, the people are educated and civilized, and governments prioritize a smooth exit from power rather than clinging to it. This is not merely for the sake of the government itself but also in the best interest of the country. If a government’s exit is not smooth, the individuals or the party in power may suffer, but the nation, its economy, and its overall cultural fabric suffer even more. An abnormal departure of any government pushes a country, a nation, and a society into a dark tunnel. To reach the light at the end of that tunnel, a nation often pays a hefty price, losing the most valuable resource—time—both in terms of national life and individual lives.

The departure of Sheikh Hasina’s government in Bangladesh was abrupt and abnormal. In the 55-year history of Bangladesh, the only government that exited smoothly was the consensus government of the Awami League and Jatiya Party in 2001. The fundamental reason for this is well known—not just the politicians but also the civil society of this country are not yet civilized enough, like those of developed nations, to believe in an honorable exit from power. This has been proven over the past 55 years. (This applies not only to governmental power but to all institutional power as well.)

Even the government that came to power after the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s administration—installed by the army chief—has not made its exit strategy clear to the people or to the political parties. And this is part of our culture. This culture extends beyond politics into our families as well. Since men write more, the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law conflict is prominently featured in our literature. However, conflicts between fathers and sons, as well as mother-in-law and son-in-law disputes, are equally common. The root cause of all this lies in the failure to believe in a proper exit strategy.

In politics, everyone blames Hasina and Khaleda, yet two of the most educated politicians in Bangladesh—Professor Muzaffar Ahmed and Comrade Moni Singh—remained the heads of their respective parties until their deaths. In a society, family, and political culture where such behavior is the norm, it is only natural that those in state power would not believe in a proper, honorable exit. Therefore, the way Sheikh Hasina lost power was neither surprising nor unprecedented in the context of Bangladesh—it was, in fact, inevitable.

Once a historical event has taken place, it must be analyzed objectively. One should not attempt to construct a self-serving narrative to suit personal interests. If a nation does not study its historical events in their true context and instead allows the victors to impose a particular narrative, then the culture and future of national life remain stagnant.

At some point, real researchers in Bangladesh—those who do more than just teach in American universities or engage in political discussions in tea stalls—will investigate the reasons behind Sheikh Hasina’s downfall. However, for those of us who are ordinary journalists, who observe reality firsthand on the streets, and for the general public of this country, three primary reasons stand out for Sheikh Hasina’s fall from power:

  1. Repeated failure to hold inclusive elections
  2. Inability to control the prices of essential goods towards the end of her tenure
  3. Appointing incompetent individuals to leadership positions in her government and party

It was not just national elections; even local government elections were not inclusive under her rule.

Although Bengalis are a backward nation in some ways, they are not regimented; they are argumentative by nature. This argumentative tendency makes them keen on voting and debating election-related issues. However, they have yet to develop a culture of playing the role of watchdog after casting their votes. Since they enjoy voting and discussing elections, their right to vote must be ensured. No nation becomes democratic overnight. Even if it is a slow process, it is the responsibility of all stakeholders in society and the state—along with politicians—to establish and nurture this culture.

At one point, Sheikh Hasina was a leader who helped cultivate this democratic culture. But after securing a second term in power, she gradually moved away from it. Instead of holding inclusive elections, she resorted to one-sided and flawed elections. Conducting such elections requires the support of various vested interest groups, which ultimately weakens the political authority of the government. When a government’s political power diminishes, it naturally loses control over economic policy. This opens the door for opportunists, leading to widespread irregularities.

Major irregularities affect the elites and the macroeconomy, but the common people feel the impact through microeconomic pressures—primarily the rising prices of essential goods. Towards the end of Sheikh Hasina’s rule, these economic pressures began to severely affect the middle and lower-income classes.

The individuals Sheikh Hasina appointed to lead her party and government were enough to ensure her downfall. When a party has Obaidul Quader as its General Secretary, Hasan Mahmud as its Foreign Minister, and Arafat as its Information Minister, the collapse of that party and government becomes only a matter of time. This is because their words and actions quickly lead the head of government or party leader into the very trap described by the Roman historian Tacitus. In other words, their conduct and statements position the government and its leader in such a way that they become deeply unpopular. And once a government or its leader becomes unpopular, even their good deeds and statements are perceived negatively by the public. The ministers and leaders of Sheikh Hasina’s party trapped her in this Tacitus Trap.

The current interim administration has already fallen into the same “Tacitus Trap.” Due to the reckless actions of some advisors and leaders of the government’s private forces, the people have started perceiving most of the government’s activities negatively. As a result, those who were active in the anti-Sheikh Hasina movement and have now been given positions of power are either concerned about retaining their posts or acting out of their own judgment, repeatedly warning that the people of this country are being misled by “fascists” and their supporters. Many are now beginning to say, “We were better off before” and “The country cannot function without Sheikh Hasina.” These statements must be stopped.

To suppress such sentiments, the current government is resorting to hard power—just as Sheikh Hasina did. However, just as Sheikh Hasina’s experience proved that hard power has its limitations, this government may soon realize that soft power is far more effective. They do not need to do much—just avoid making arrests or legal threats, and instead, allow Obaidul Quader, Hasan Mahmud, and Arafat to operate freely within the country. Let Obaidul Quader post his usual photos on Facebook for a week, and let Hasan Mahmud and Arafat speak regularly on BTV. Within two weeks—perhaps even sooner—the widespread belief that “We were better off before” or “The country cannot function without Sheikh Hasina” will start to fade away.

The chief advisor of the current government (who, in an interview with editor Nurul Kabir, admitted he had not given much thought to whom he was advising) and the army chief—who is effectively the architect of this administration—must take immediate action to curb those within the government and its private forces who are presenting various theories to obstruct the path toward an inclusive election. Some are even questioning the country’s core identity, the Liberation War, and the Declaration of Independence—issues that form the very foundation of the constitution.

Above all, it must be acknowledged that the country’s law and order situation has drastically deteriorated. The economy is in a severe crisis. Uncontrolled inflation, job losses, and mass unemployment have left the country adrift—like a ship without a captain, lost in the middle of the sea.

The government’s current direction, along with the statements and actions of its so-called spokespersons and enforcers, is moving the country further away from a neutral, independent, and, most importantly, inclusive election. The extent of this deterioration is evident in the recent interview of BNP Secretary General Fakhrul Islam Alamgir with the BBC, where he subtly but clearly stated, “If the government cannot remain neutral, then a neutral government will be required.”

In reality, without a truly neutral and strong government, it is impossible to improve the current law-and-order situation or conduct an inclusive election. And without an inclusive election, any attempt to form a government through a one-sided election will only lead to a political disaster. Before attempting such a move, those in power—who lack political and life experience—should reflect on the fate of even a mighty leader like Sheikh Hasina. Those who orchestrated this government must take this issue more seriously.

This government has already discredited itself by obstructing justice for police killings, denying the persecution of religious minorities, and allowing the country to become a haven for extortion. In doing so, they have erased the anti-Sheikh Hasina movement’s graffiti, draining it of its color and impact.

At this stage, at the very least, the government should refrain from being an obstacle to a smooth exit and an inclusive election. If they allow a clear pathway toward stability, the country will find a way forward. The sooner this happens, the better it will be for the people of Bangladesh.

Author: National Award-winning Journalist, Editor of Sarakhon & The Present World

Please Share This Post in Your Social Media

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More News Of This Category