Bangladesh’s Awami League no longer a party of the people

THE history of the Awami League (AL) — which started off as the Awami Muslim League (AML) — at 75 can be encapsulated under three headings: the AL at birth, the AL under Bangabandhu’s leadership and the AL with Sheikh Hasina at the helm. From its birth in 1949 to our liberation in 1971, the AL can be credited with being either the author of or the main mover and participant in all democratic and cultural movements working to strengthen the demand for the rights of the Bangalees in East Pakistan. No other party can claim to have singularly represented all our democratic aspirations as the AL during our days under Pakistan.

In the first phase, the two most important events that brought the AML to the forefront were: the Language Movement — which united the people of East Pakistan and crystallised the efforts of the AML to become the true voice of the people — and the 1954 provincial election under the banner of the United Front (Jukta Front), in which the AML was the biggest and most active partner, getting 143 seats as the party and 228 seats as a part of the Jukta Front out of a total of 309 seats.

The 1954 election proved that there was a far deeper significance of the AML’s birth than many people realised then and even now. It has not been studied in depth, and its significance has not been fully evaluated in subsequent research and books. It was the beginning of the disillusionment with the ideology of Pakistan; it was the start of questioning as to whether religion could be the only foundation of a newly formed state; it presented evidence that people lost confidence in the founding party of Pakistan, the Muslim League, which never recovered later, except under military tutelage.

Almost all leaders who formed the new party were integral parts of the Pakistan movement. So, why after succeeding to carve out Pakistan, would these leaders and their followers move away from the party — the Muslim League — that had founded the new country?

The answer is simple. With Pakistan’s birth, the Muslim League suddenly revealed itself to be devoted to serving the interest of the feudal landed gentry from West Pakistan, especially that of Punjab. The so-called Pakistani leadership was not concerned with its multiple and varied linguistic and cultural heritage. Bangalees, who constituted the majority of the new country’s population, found their economic rights and cultural heritage ignored and their language, Bangla, denied the status of a state language. In fact, the death of the new country was signalled by the very man who founded it, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, when he declared in Dhaka, “Let there be no doubt that Urdu and Urdu shall be the only national language of Pakistan.” That was the beginning of the end of Pakistan founded in 1947.

It was under Bangabandhu’s stewardship that the AL expanded its appeal to the masses. His Six-Point Programme galvanised the people as never before and hardened their resolve to fight for their rights. Those of us, as student activists, who were witness to his meteoric rise, who had the privilege to hear his mesmerising speeches and saw firsthand how he unified the Bangalees, felt in our hearts that finally we had a leader who could realise the dream of our freedom.

The victory in the 1970 general election, under Bangabandhu’s leadership, was the AL’s biggest, most sweeping and politically critical achievement in that period. It was the precursor to our Liberation War. That electoral victory gave the AL the legal, moral and political right to speak on behalf of the people of East Pakistan and declare independence and start the armed struggle when genocide was imposed on our unarmed people. The AL’s leadership, the role of the Mujibnagar government and especially that of war-time PM Tajuddin Ahmad were remarkable.

Bangabandhu’s brutal killing, along with all members of his immediate family, save the two daughters — our current PM and her sister —was the most tragic event that could have befallen us.

Of the AL’s 75 years of existence, the last 43 have been under Sheikh Hasina’s leadership. Since her return from exile in India in 1981, she has rebuilt the AL after it suffered from deep existential crises following the murder of Bangabandhu. She has not only successfully re-organised and re-energised the party but also brought it to power in 1996, after 21 years of being in the Opposition. She returned to power in 2008 and has continued till date.

During her last 15 years of rule, she brought about remarkable advancement in the country’s economic field. However, her grand success came with some very damaging costs. A party in Opposition and the same party in power, especially when the stay is long, present two radically different pictures. The AL that began as the voice of the people has now ended up being that of an individual. From the smallest to the most significant policy decisions, they are no longer the result of debates within its ranks, but personal choices of the leadership.

Elections, a crucial measure of judging how a political party is faring in the public eye, is no longer valid in Bangladesh. It has lost its fundamental ability to elect genuine representatives of the people, due to both the ruling party’s grip on all state institutions that guarantee free polls and the Opposition’s unthinking boycott of elections.

As the AL celebrates 75 years of its existence, there are many reasons for it to be proud. But there is an equal number of reasons for it to be deeply concerned. Money and muscle power have replaced people’s power in the day-to-day operation of this party. Except for a few at the top, party positions today are up for grabs by the rich and the corrupt. The victory of a large number of the AL’s own ‘disobeying’ candidates in the last election stands as proof of how corrupt the original selection process was.

The party today is its own judge and jury. It is a typical example of a political party living in its own bubble. And since it has monopoly control on all the levers of power, the bubble, as fragile as it is, can also be dangerous. This is so because the reality presented by the bubble can form the basis of decisions that can fatally harm us all. The handling of the issues of corruption, money-laundering, misuse of power, and, especially, that of defaulted loans and the treatment meted out to wilful defaulters cannot be but the results of living in a bubble.

We hope we have given enough food for thought to the Awami League on its 75th anniversary.