The July Revolution has opened a vast window of possibility for freeing Bangladesh’s imprisoned democracy. The democracy for which the people of Bangladesh have struggled since the partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947 has appeared only fleetingly—like the moon emerging briefly from behind clouds—before disappearing again beneath thick cover.
Even after 24 years of Pakistan’s independence, Bengalis did not taste democracy; and although nearly five and a half decades have passed since Bangladesh achieved independence, democracy has yet to appear in its true form. Owing to the failures of political parties, periods of military rule or civilian governments under military authority have intervened. As a result, not only democracy but every step towards national development has stumbled.
Through an unprecedented and successful revolution in Bangladesh’s history, the fall and flight from the country of a government that had come to power through a rigged and farcical election just seven months ago has, for the first time, created an opportunity for the people to see an elected democratic government in power. Bangladesh’s largest and most popular political party is the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), which has governed for three terms (1979–1982, 1991–1996 and 2001–2006) and is enriched by experience in running the state.
The return to the country after 17 years of the party’s top leader, Tarique Rahman, as part of the momentum of the July Revolution, has generated a mass surge to secure a BNP victory under his leadership in the national election scheduled for 12 February. The manner in which the public welcomed him on 25 December stands as a testament to the nation’s confidence in him and his party.
Our political leaders have not allowed the people of Bangladesh to truly understand what “democracy” means. After struggling in its name throughout their lives, once in power they deceived the people and imposed one-party autocratic rule upon them. In the newly independent country, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman staged a political drama to monopolise power, trampling the people’s hopes and aspirations. Through the political culture he introduced in the name of democracy, he effectively sought to convey that democracy was not for Bangladesh, nor Bangladesh for democracy. In doing so, he aimed to enjoy sole power, blocking all paths for any other party to govern through elections during his lifetime. That ambition was not fulfilled—nor was it ever likely to be.
In the modern age, how many people can become devotees of personality cults? The people of Bangladesh did not become his worshippers or subjects. No conscious citizen wished to be confined within the arrogance of “I” and “mine”. Sheikh Mujib’s lust for power, nepotism and the spread of corruption at every level invited his own tragic end. At the same time, the political and socio-economic obstacles he left behind in the promising newly independent country took many years to overcome before the nation could stand upright.
The people of Bangladesh want nothing but democracy, even at the cost of their lives. They want democracy within the political parties that govern them, and they want to see Bangladesh run by a democratic government. Yet, with regret, they observe that in the parties they favour and elect, a single individual clings to the top post for life. If one person holds a party’s highest position for decades, how can such parties deliver a “democratic government” to the people? When parties become personality-driven or centred on individuals, the public can no longer expect democracy.
When Bangladesh was part of Pakistan, the people saw the all-powerful President Ayub Khan offer an innovative form of democracy called “Basic Democracy”. After independence, they saw Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the undisputed leader of the time, present one-party “democratic socialism” under the guise of BAKSAL. These leaders offered the nation their own definitions of a “democratic government”. But the people rejected the self-fashioned democracies of Ayub and Mujib, consigning both rulers to the dustbin of history. What happens to democracy without democratic practice within parties is best illustrated by the initiatives of Ayub and Mujib. When a political party becomes dependent on a single individual, there can be no hope of changing the fate of the party, the country or the people. Ayub Khan could not do it; nor could Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, despite enjoying immense popular support. Instead, they departed leaving the country mired in disorder, anarchy and chaos.
A state and government cannot be run merely through popular support, arrogance, bravado, coercion, incendiary speeches and obstinacy. Had that been possible, Sheikh Mujib might have been Bangladesh’s finest ruler. But the principles by which he sought to govern cannot be fitted into any grammar of statecraft or definition in political science. Had he set aside his obsession with power and left a lasting imprint on statecraft, applied the counsel of political philosophers and the established norms and techniques of governance, and followed the examples of democratic countries around the world, he would not have been remembered as a condemned ruler in Bangladesh’s history.
Be that as it may, since Tarique Rahman’s return, Bangladesh’s political landscape has changed abruptly. His presence has even overshadowed the interim government. The BNP wishes to see him as Bangladesh’s next Prime Minister, and the public at large has begun to regard him as a likely candidate. If he can secure a parliamentary majority for his party in the 13th national election to be held in just a month and a half, he will undoubtedly become Prime Minister. In that case, as the son of a former President and former Prime Minister, he would create new history as the third member of the same family to hold the office of head of government. Tarique Rahman himself may believe this. Yet concerns have already arisen that, in governing, he may face difficulties not from those in opposition, but from within his own party.
Since coming to power in 2009, the Awami League has filed false cases against BNP Chairperson and former Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia and her son, the party’s acting chairman Tarique Rahman, along with all central leaders, keeping them imprisoned for years without trial and killing BNP leaders and activists—effectively rendering the BNP leaderless. No alternative leadership emerged. Consequently, for more than 15 and a half years up to 2024, the BNP could not mount an effective movement against Awami League misrule, not even in protest at Khaleda Zia being forced out of her home and subjected to various forms of harassment.
After the July Revolution, mid-level and grassroots BNP activists across the country became involved in extortion and illegal occupation, and this trend has yet to stop. Clashes stemming from internal party feuds, along with casualties, continue in various places. Many accused in these incidents have been expelled and disciplinary action taken, but this has proved insufficient. If the BNP comes to power, the number of opportunists will increase further. If Tarique Rahman cannot be firm on this issue now, he will face serious difficulties in the future.
I believe that Tarique Rahman has undoubtedly matured politically compared with 17 years ago. In his brief address to the crowd that welcomed him on 25 December, he quoted Martin Luther King Jr’s famous words, “I have a dream,” and spoke of his own “I have a plan”. This, too, is a great dream. To realise it, he must first take tough steps to clear the deadwood from his party. Like Singapore’s first Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, he must adopt a policy of zero tolerance towards corruption. Lee Kuan Yew believed corruption begins at the top, and within two years of taking office he removed three ministers and one Member of Parliament, along with many other senior figures, over allegations of corruption. Bangladesh’s future Prime Minister could follow Lee Kuan Yew’s example. Bitter experiences of the past must also have taught him how skillful one must be in governing the state. In this regard, the example set by his father, the late President Ziaur Rahman—renowned for integrity and for rising above nepotism—could serve as his guiding path.
If Tarique Rahman does indeed assume the office of Prime Minister after the February election, it would be appropriate for him to keep in mind the political philosophy of the French thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau said: “In decision-making, the supreme leader must reflect the indivisible and collective will of the people, and must regard himself and his ministers not as rulers of the people but as their servants. Only then will the people realise that their consent is the sole source of the authority of the state and government.” He may also draw some positive lessons from the political thought of Machiavelli, often regarded as a cunning philosopher: “A leader’s primary duty is to be firm in making the state secure and strong. To maintain order, there must be the rule of law, but to confront threats, the use of force may at times be necessary.”
Author: Senior journalist based in the United States.
