by Daniel Berman
Getting reelected with a bad economy is hard – ask George H. W. Bush. Getting reelected with a bad economy, near anarchy in the countryside, multiple corruption probes, and accusations of human rights abuses is harder still. Hence Sheikh Hasina, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh hit upon gold when she found perhaps the single most fool-proof strategy for electoral success imaginable – run against no one. When Bangladeshi voters went to the polls this week, in a majority of constituencies, 154 out of 300, they might not have bothered; only one candidate was on the ballot. In the remainder, they could chose between the candidate of the ruling Awami League and a gaggle of minor opposition candidates. In such a situation, its far from surprising that the Awami League secured 232 out of 300 seats and that turnout fell from 87% to 23%.
This “nonelection” owed its unique character to the decision of Khaleda Zia, the leader of the Bangladeshi National Party to boycott the elections, a decision that in turn followed the Awami League government’s decision to alter a portion of the constitution requiring interim governments to oversee elections. Intended to prevent vote rigging, the provision has historically been relatively successful towards that end – no government has been reelected since 1991. Beyond that however, the caretaker governments have tended to also see their limited tenures as an opportunity to enrich themselves, and the lionization they have received in the international press is largely undeserved.
It was of course the vote rigging issue, not concerns about graft, that drove the BNP’s decision to boycott the elections. In this their concerns were justified – to an extent. Undoubtedly the Awami League, which had systematically attacked the media, and arrested leaders of the third largest party, the Jamaat Islami, has been behaving in an autocratic manner. The latter are officially charged with plotting to overthrow Bangladesh’s secular constitution and to replace it with Sharia; unofficially they are being punished for the role they played in the overthrow and murder of Sheikh Hasina’s father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1975. As it was the husband of BNP leader Khaleda Zia who led that coup, and past BNP governments which featured ministers from the Jamaat Islami, reopening the issue has forced the BNP to take a stand no despite the (disingenuous) insistence of the government that the prosecutions have nothing to do with past events and purely with fighting fundamentalism.
The BNP’s decision to stand by their allies has served Sheikh Hasina well. While the elections this year would not have been fair in no way means that the BNP could not have won them – it swept local elections last summer, even in Awami League strongholds, and polling showed the Awami League heading for a clobbering. In such a scenario, an Awami League victory would have looked sufficiently suspicious that it would have provided the BNP with a basis for a stronger challenge. This is probably why European diplomats repeatedly attempted to persuade BNP officials to take part in the elections, and only resort to protests once blatant rigging had clearly taken place. In such a scenario, international pressure might have forced Sheikh Hasina to yield. Instead, by boycotting the polls, the BNP has taken a chance that democracy in Bangladesh is a principle the international community will place above its concerns for stability in the region.
Unfortunately for the BNP, it is not the Europeans who are pulling the strings today in Bangladesh. Far more important is the role of India, which concerned about the linked threats of Terror, has allowed itself to be persuaded by Sheikh Hasina that her opponents are acting as front for Islamic fundamentalism, with Khaleda Zia and the BNP acting either as co-conspirators or useful. As such, India has given full-backing to her government, recognizing the elections. Equally importantly, the United States has adopted an ambiguous position – while expressing concern about the conduct of the elections, it has urged the BNP to participate, and failed explicitly to condemn the prosecution of the Jamaat Islami. While not a ringing endorsement of Sheikh Hasina’s approach, the benevolent neutrality of the United States is about all she could ask for. Only the United States could seriously pressure India into taking a harder line; its indifference ensures Indian support for the Awami League.
So where does this leave Bangladesh post-election? Despite the concerns expressed by the Economist and others in the Western media, Sheikh Hasina will almost certainly survive. The Army is thoroughly anti-Islamist, and is unlikely to oust her without a guarantee of Indian neutrality which will not be forthcoming. Street protests are unlikely to shutdown the government, though they disrupt the economy, and lead to the rise of the same extremists the Bangladeshi government claims it is trying to suppress. Outsiders are also likely to do little. The United States, which would undoubtedly have preferred freer and more competitive elections, is unsure if it really wants a BNP government aligned with a martyred Jamaat Islami in office, and therefore will do little more than urge compromise. India will do less than that.
The real consequences therefore will be felt not at present but over the next few years, as the unpopular and now illegitimate Awami League government becomes thoroughly associated in the minds of Bangladeshis with secularism, and the United States and India with that government. Sometime down the road there will be elections again, and it’s likely that foreigners will not like the results.
Daniel Berman is a Political Analyst who has written for and been quoted by a number of publications including CNN and The Cook Political Report. Daniel shares his views on Bangladesh’s election with TKV.
Source: