Awami League’s crimes: What should be its punishment?

The recent statement by National Citizen Party (NCP) leader Hasnat Abdullah has stirred a significant political debate in Bangladesh, adding a new layer of complexity to the country’s already volatile political landscape. Hasnat’s claim that an effort is underway to create a “refined Awami League” as part of a broader “Awami League must come back” strategy, allegedly backed by India and the military, has caught many by surprise. It is not just his statement that has raised eyebrows, but also the manner in which it has been delivered. His remarks have not only exposed deeper political tensions but also raised critical questions about the future of democratic politics in Bangladesh.

The demand to ban a major political party raises fundamental questions about the limits of democratic competition and the long-term consequences of political exclusion.

To understand the weight of Hasnat’s comments, it is essential to reflect on the origins of the current political turmoil. The mass movement in July-August last year, which forced Sheikh Hasina out of power, was driven by public frustration with the government’s autocratic tendencies and corruption. The movement was built on four key demands: annulment of the quota system in public service; resignation of Sheikh Hasina; restoration of democratic norms; and establishment of political balance within the government. The protests were marked by intense public mobilisation and sacrifice, as protesters faced violence and government-sponsored repression in their push for political reform.

However, it is important to note that at no point during the July mass movement was there a call to ban the Awami League altogether. The essence of the movement was to restore political balance and ensure accountability, not to dismantle political pluralism. The movement’s broad support base reflected a shared commitment to democratic principles rather than a call for political vengeance. This raises an important question: would the movement have attracted the same level of public support if the goal had been to eliminate the Awami League as a political force? The movement sought political reform, not political elimination.

Despite the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s government and the departure of several high-ranking Awami League leaders, the party still has some support in Bangladesh. In every competitive election—not the ones held under Sheikh Hasina—the party has consistently secured at least 35 percent of popular vote. This is a significant figure; it reflects the party’s historical, social and political roots. Political support for the Awami League extends beyond individual leaders; it is embedded in the party’s historical legacy, particularly its role in Bangladesh’s liberation struggle. It is true that Hasina destroyed the party hierarchy, but it still remains a potent force.

Can such a deeply rooted political entity be banned out of existence? Even if the government were to outlaw the Awami League, its political base would not disappear overnight. Political bans have historically fuelled underground movements and radicalisation, rather than eliminating political influence. Furthermore, not all Awami League leaders have been implicated in corruption or human rights violations. Is it justifiable—or even constitutional—to deny them political participation solely because of their party affiliation? Political accountability should target individual wrongdoing—they can be tried and punished—rather than dismantling entire political structures.

History offers valuable lessons on the consequences of political bans. After the 2013 military coup in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood was declared illegal and banned from political participation. Far from restoring stability, the ban triggered new waves of political violence and radicalisation. The political vacuum left by the Brotherhood’s dissolution led to greater instability and state repression. Bangladesh faces a similar risk. Banning the Awami League could push its supporters to align with extremist groups or form underground movements, thereby fuelling unrest and long-term political volatility. Political bans tend to create martyrs rather than resolving political conflicts. The forced dissolution of the Awami League could generate sympathy among its supporters and strengthen opposition to the interim government.

From a legal standpoint, banning the Awami League would directly contradict both domestic and international democratic principles. Bangladesh is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees the right to political association. Outlawing a major political party would violate these commitments and draw sharp criticism from the international community. Domestically, the right to political association is protected under the constitution—specifically under Articles 37, 38, and 39. Any attempt to ban the Awami League would face serious constitutional challenges and undermine the legitimacy of the interim government. It would also contradict the principles of democratic pluralism that the July movement sought to restore.

The call to ban the Awami League also raises questions about the political motivations behind such a dramatic statement. The July uprising united a broad coalition of political and social forces, but that unity appears to be unravelling. Hasnat’s statement could be an attempt to regain political relevance by appealing to anti-Awami League sentiment. Alternatively, the proposal could reflect internal divisions within the NCP itself. If Hasnat’s faction is struggling to consolidate power, targeting the Awami League could serve as a unifying strategy to rally support. However, this strategy risks alienating moderate voters who supported the July uprising’s call for political accountability—not political revenge.

If banning the Awami League is not the solution, then what is? The answer lies in political accountability rather than political purges. Awami League leaders involved in corruption, human rights abuses, and political violence should be prosecuted through the judicial system. Financial crimes, including bank fraud and smuggling, must be investigated and punished under existing legal frameworks. Democratic reforms aimed at strengthening political transparency and accountability should be prioritised. Political elimination rarely leads to long-term stability. Accountability, not erasure, is the foundation of democratic governance. Political competition and ideological diversity are essential for maintaining a democratic balance.

While Jamaat-e-Islami was not banned for most of Sheikh Hasina’s tenure, the Awami League for long used the idea of banning Jamaat as a political tool. Eventually, when it did move to ban Jamaat, the political outcome was not what the party had anticipated. Hasnat’s call to ban the Awami League holds the same risk. If the Awami League is banned, it could emerge stronger as a political martyr. Public sympathy could shift towards the party, and the political vacuum created by its dissolution could destabilise Bangladesh further. Banning the Awami League would not erase its deep political roots; instead, it would likely drive its supporters towards greater political mobilisation. Political accountability—not political elimination—remains the key to resolving the country’s political crisis.

Mohammad Al-Masum Molla is a journalist at The Daily Star. He can be reached at [email protected].

Views expressed in this article are the author’s own.