Jannatul Naym Pieal
“Fascism” has become the buzzword of the day, particularly as Donald Trump is often labelled as a representation of it in the lead-up to the US presidential election. Closer to home, Bangladesh’s former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s 16-year tenure is also attracting the same label.
In fact, it seems that no political speech or social media post is complete these days without the mention of “fascism” at least a few times.
Most recently in a recent interview with Financial Times, chief adviser Dr Muhammad Yunus accused Bangladesh Awami League of exhibiting “all the characteristics of fascism,” saying it has “no place” for now in the country’s politics.
Later, Hasina’s son Sajeeb Wazed Joy also hit back at Dr Yunus, as he posted on his Facebook, “Unelected, unconstitutional Yunus is sounding more like a fascist than anyone else in Bangladesh right now. You cannot ban the oldest and largest political party in Bangladesh, the party that led the independence.”
There are other voices both home and abroad too, cautioning that even though one fascist regime has been toppled, another may be on the horizon.
So, we decided to take a deep dive into this topic and explore what all the fuss about fascism is really about and what the future holds for the country.
According to social scientist Dr Iftekhar Uddin Chowdhury, a former vice-chancellor of Chittagong University, fascism is “fundamentally political,” rooted in personal interests and enabled by corrupt practices.
He characterises it as a system in which the state is manipulated to serve the desires of a single leader, frequently through the suppression of opposition and the silencing of dissent.
Dr Chowdhury notes that from 1919 to 1945, fascism had a prominent presence in various European countries, where extreme right-wing nationalism emerged. This ideology excluded opposition, prioritising authoritarian rule that disregarded individual freedoms.
The concept of fascism originated in Italy after World War I and gradually spread to various countries in Europe, including Germany. The rise of Nazism under Hitler in Germany represented a form of fascism, facilitating the emergence of controversial leaders like Hitler and Mussolini across Europe.
Fascist parties aimed for absolute dominance over state power, seeking control over various institutions, including the church, judiciary, universities, social clubs and sports organisations. They believed in the absolute authority of one individual, with the head of the political party also serving as the head of state, vested with all power.
“During the previous government’s term, we saw all the signs of these,” Dr Chowdhury says.
To local government and election affairs expert Dr Tofail Ahmed, also a member of the election system reform commission appointed by the interim government, the foundation of fascism within Hasina’s regime can be linked to the concept of Bonapartism as well.
Originally articulated by Marx in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Bonapartism describes a leader who gains power by appealing to popular sentiment but gradually dismantles democratic structures to centralise authority.
In Bangladesh, the roots of this phenomenon can be traced back to 1973-74, under Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who attempted to centralise power by merging his authority with state machinery.
“Over the years, Hasina—Mujib’s daughter—built on these Bonapartist foundations, fostering an authoritarian regime characterised by a systematic erosion of institutional autonomy throughout her tenure,” Dr Ahmed said.
However, can Hasina really be equated with Trump as a fascist? Kazi Mohammad Mahbobor Rahman, Associate Professor of Political Science at Dhaka University, is sceptical.
“Calling Trump a fascist right now is difficult. After all, Trump was democratically elected as a president. It’s not like he was elected and then clung to power indefinitely. In many other countries, once someone is democratically elected, they may not transfer power again, allowing their personal identity to become politically dominant,” he explains.
Rahman further elaborates that when a political system revolves around the identity of a single person, with everyone believing that individual embodies the entirety of politics, or when politics is restricted to an exclusive group viewing all others as enemies of the state, that is when fascism emerges. In such cases, the person, government and state merge into one.
But if there is electoral competition, it cannot be classified as fascism; that scenario would be more accurately described as electoral autocracy. While certain elements of a fascist identity may be observed in Trump, he is still part of an electoral competition.
“So, you could call him a bearer of electoral autocracy, establishing authoritarianism through democratic means. The opportunity to label him as a fascist hasn’t fully emerged yet,” Rahman states.
Dr Ahmed concurs, saying, “In the United States, the system itself does not breed fascism; instead, an individual, like Trump, can embody those tendencies and even win a popular mandate without the same systematic reinforcement.”
He also draws a parallel between Bangladesh’s recent mass uprising and historical events like the Arab Spring, particularly Tunisia’s 2011 revolution, which saw the ousting of another long-standing authoritarian regime.
While Tunisia’s uprising initially led to democratic advancements, the country later faced political instability, economic stagnation and a resurgence of autocratic elements.
Dr Ahmed warns that Bangladesh may confront a similar fate if it fails to dismantle the institutional structures and political culture that enabled Hasina’s rule.
He opines that overthrowing a single leader is merely the first step; for a truly democratic transition, the country must reform the deeper power dynamics that sustained the authoritarian system.
“With influence divided among the interim government, military and student groups, Bangladesh’s political landscape is fragmented but ripe with potential for reform. Achieving a stable democratic system will require tackling the structural and economic foundations of authoritarianism—something that calls for patience and thoughtful action,” he advises.
He further adds that to prevent any future leader from easily merging personal power with state control, it’s essential to dismantle the influence of entrenched interests and cultural forces.
Rahman, however, does not believe there is a chance of the emergence of another fascist regime immediately after the ousting of the previous one.
“Fascism doesn’t develop overnight. The previous government fell just three months ago, and fascism cannot take root in such a short time. Understanding fascism requires observing a long period. It’s only after someone remains in power for an extended time that fascist characteristics start to emerge,” he asserts.
He concluded by saying that if the Hasina government hadn’t been in power continuously for the past 15 years, if there hadn’t been three illegitimate elections, or if others had been allowed to compete in those elections, fascism would likely never have had a chance to arise.
tbs
