Protesters continue to wield power in Bangladesh

The protesters in Bangladesh, who had started out last month opposing the reservations for the descendants of Bangladesh’s 1971 freedom fighters, and which ended in then Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina leaving the country, continue to assert the power of protesters.

An interim government has been formed under Nobel laureate and micro-finance miracle worker Muhammad Yunus, the protesters have forced the chief justice of Bangladesh to resign, and so did the vice-chancellor of Dhaka University where the protests originated. Even the central bank governor has resigned but he was asked by the finance minister in the interim government to continue as a headless central bank would have sent out a negative message to the markets.

The protesters had issued threats to the chief justice saying he must step down or face trouble. Head of the interim government Muhammad Yunus had asked the protesters to maintain peace, but it looks like the protesters are not willing to trust the interim government to remove all the people in top positions appointed by Sheikh Hasina Wajed and her Awami League government. The thinking and demand of the protesters is that those in top positions are Awami League loyalists and they cannot be expected to be impartial and fair.

Protesters forcing decisions through threats can only spell anarchy. The system could break down under the popular pressure. This is no doubt an extreme reaction by the protesters against the extreme partisan politics that the Awami League government had played for 15 years. Had there been a change of government, the other side would have brought in its own people to be in top positions and some balance of power would have been maintained.

But the long and uninterrupted stay in power by the Awami League had only made things worse, it seems. Whatever be the justification of the protesters in forcing the Awami League appointees out of office, it can be a mode of governance. The opposition parties in Bangladesh are using the people’s anger to get back at the ruling Awami League, but a way has to be found when the interim government should be implementing the changes in the system, and the interim government would have to show that it is fair and impartial.

Given the present mood of the people, they would want early elections, and the interim government has to prepare for it. And most likely, the verdict will go against the Awami League and Sheikh Hasina Wajed, and in favour of the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) and its leader, former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia.

But the BNP and Khaleda should not follow in the footsteps of Sheikh Hasina Wajed. They should not demonise and marginalise the Awami League. The elections have to be fair, and the opposition parties have to find a place in the political system. What is needed on the part of Khaleda Zia is a sense of moderation, and even generosity towards Awami League and its leader.

It is indeed the case that Sheikh Hasina had thoughtlessly imprisoned Khaleda Zia and undermined the credibility of the election process. Sheikh Hasina wielded total power, and it has proved the undoing not only of her own government but also the Bangladesh political process. The people were left helpless, and they were forced to come out on to the streets.

Khaleda Zia has the responsibility of restoring the credibility of Bangladesh democracy. Terming Sheikh Hasina Wajed as the enemy and treating her as criminal will pacify the angry protesters and satisfy the BNP and Khaleda Zia. But it will keep Bangladesh as a single party-dominant democracy. It will keep Bangladesh’s democracy fragile and unstable.