IN TWO months, or sooner, Bangladeshis will go to the polls. This general election will be the seventh stab at a political transition involving the two heads of bickering dynasties—Khaleda Zia, of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), pictured left, and Sheikh Hasina, of the Awami League (AL), pictured right. Since 1991 the two parties have taken part fully in only four polls, with the other elections subjected to boycotts or army intervention.
On November 18th Bangladesh’s president swore in members of an interim government, who have the task of overseeing the election, which must be held by late January (January 9th is said to be favoured as voting day). It is merely a slimmed down version of the existing government of Sheikh Hasina, made up of the AL and assorted smaller allies, including the Jatiyo party of a former dictator, Mohammad Ershad.
The government is constitutional, but hardly popular. Opinion polls suggest four-fifths of Bangladeshis would prefer a non-party caretaker arrangement. The BNP calls the current set-up a “farce”. No members of the 18-party opposition alliance led by the BNP are included. Meanwhile the election commission has confirmed a court ban on Jamaat-e-Islami, Bangladesh’s largest Islamist party, taking part in elections.
Mrs Zia and her allies met the president on November 19th and requested him to “ask the government to shun the path of conflict and create an atmosphere conducive to holding dialogue”. She says a non-party caretaker would guard against rigging and warns of an election boycott unless she gets her way. A constitutional provision for caretaker governments was erased only in 2011. The BNP would consider a boycott legitimate payback for two AL boycotts—in 1995 and 2007—that both ended up, eventually, propelling the AL to power.
The AL’s popularity has been sliding, however, and a BNP boycott would prolong its rule at least for a while. In addition, Sheikh Hasina can retort that the current set-up is constitutional and that the BNP declined an offer to join the interim government. Complicating matters for Mrs Zia, most of her BNP politicians are desperate to take part in the election. If Mrs Zia opts for a boycott, she would have to convince them it would suit their self-interest, as the first step to a big win in a second poll. Otherwise, she risks having them run as independents, splitting her party and lending legitimacy to the January poll.
A compromise may be possible. Tarique Rahman, Mrs Zia’s eldest son and heir apparent, has been acquitted in a case of money laundering. That decision could ease some of the tension between the country’s two leading ladies. How independent are the courts? The line between the judiciary and politicians looks dangerously blurred. Four prosecutors of Bangladesh’s war-crimes tribunal and the head of the court’s investigation agency have applied to be Awami League candidates. No judges in the war crimes court have applied for party tickets, yet they are expected to deliver the punishment sought by the prosecutor-turned politicians—with death sentences likely for some of those convicted—probably next month.
If the voting goes ahead, the BNP would appear strongly placed. Despite the Jatiyo party sitting in the interim government, it this week snapped its electoral alliance with the AL. Threats of electoral violence would probably help the BNP too: low turnout hurts the AL especially. If the evidence mounts in favour of the BNP it may yet blink and decide to take part in January.
(Picture credit: AFP)
Source: The Economist
