Takeaways from Bangladesh poll verdict
MANY experts on Bangladesh in India are bound to assess the election results from the Indian viewpoint, leading to the conclusion that the victory of the Sheikh Hasina-led Awami League is good news for India. But that would be a short-sighted view. The question to be asked is whether the win is beneficial for the people of Bangladesh. And it would appear that the Awami League’s victory — fourth in a row — is good for Bangladesh because there has been healthy economic growth in the country during the time the party has been in power.
The BNP is seen as a party that supports Islamism, which, apart from creating problems for Hindu and Buddhist minorities, is also a threat to Muslims.
Economists suggest that the Bangladesh economy performed well till 2019, but it has done badly since then, with 2023 being particularly challenging. However, that alone does not tell the whole story of this one-sided election. It is possible to speculate that the main Opposition party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), was uncertain of winning the election, so it decided to ‘concede’ defeat. The BNP’s boycott and the low voter turnout — around 40 per cent, as per Bangladesh’s The Daily Star — highlight a significant democracy deficit that cannot be ignored.
The saying that justice should not only be done but also seen to have been done applies to democracy and elections. Credibility is essential, and an election lacking serious contestation raises uncomfortable questions. There is speculation that Hasina attempted to orchestrate a fair election by allocating seats to Jatiya Party and others to contest. There were even efforts to forge a similar compromise with the BNP, which ultimately failed.
The Awami League will deny these claims, but observers in Bangladesh have expressed disappointment with the electoral process. However, low voter turnout is a common feature in democracies worldwide, including so-called mature ones. Democracies are ailing all over the world, and the symptoms vary in each case. What is disturbing about Bangladesh is the strong feeling among observers about signs of an unhealthy democracy. Independent election observer Sharmeen Murshid, quoted by The Daily Star, said: “This was an election without grammar… I did not see an election….It didn’t fit into anything… results were the same.”
The accusation against Hasina and the Awami League government is that it has become authoritarian, with allegations of favouritism and corruption. While such charges might seem predictable against any long-standing government, they need not necessarily be true. However, it cannot be denied that parties and leaders in power without a credible challenge tend to be authoritarian as democratic checks are absent in the absence of a robust Opposition. The tendency towards authoritarianism cannot be rationalised, and its deleterious effects on the polity cannot be easily explained away. The challenge that the victorious Awami League and Hasina face is the disappointment and seething anger of the people, which may manifest itself in protests as discontent overflows. And the greater the repression, the stronger the people’s anger will be.
Democracies, if they survive, undergo internal course correction, and the people will stand up sooner or later. The crucial questions to ask are whether the Sunday election was fair, given the circumstances, and whether the Hasina government has been undermining democratic institutions and processes. Additionally, if the low voter turnout reflects people’s disenchantment with the Awami League, these are pertinent questions for Bangladesh and its people. For outsiders, the nature of the regime may not matter as long as there are economic and strategic benefits. India and China would be interested in whether the government in Dhaka enhances their influence and brings economic and strategic advantages. Meanwhile, Bangladeshis may desire a better quality of life, which includes improved democratic governance.
It can be argued that it is not the fault of the Awami League or Hasina that they are the only ones left standing in the field. It is apparently not their fault to have won successive elections, and it is not their fault that they have become authoritarian in the process. If democracies falter, the fault presumably does not lie with the political parties and leaders but with the people. The people have to bear the brunt of responsibility. While this might seem like a theoretical speculation, the quality of democracy significantly affects the political and economic stability of a country.
There is the pragmatic view that as long as the economy is doing well, people are employed and not starving, it does not matter what kind of a party is in power. It is economic instability in a country that should concern neighbouring countries and the rest of the world. Because it is then that migrants cross into other countries, near and far. The Indian argument would be that an economically prosperous Bangladesh, even under an authoritarian regime, would not be a bad option as it could potentially reduce illegal migration.
There is also the BNP factor in Bangladesh politics. It is seen as a party that supports Islamism, which, apart from creating problems for Hindu and Buddhist minorities, is also a threat to Muslims. The question arises: is it preferable to have an authoritarian Awami League in power than a religiously minded BNP? This is a dilemma that Egyptians face: enduring an autocratic secular regime instead of a fanatical Muslim Brotherhood-supported party in power. Making the right choice is never easy in a democracy, and there are always risks. It seems that Bangladeshis have taken the risk of re-electing the Awami League and Hasina.
