Reforms, elections – and the politics over these issues – all seems to be in a state of confusion. The student community which led Hasina’s ouster, its associate and supporting political forces and the interim government – none seems to on the same page anymore.
The students want significant changes in the state and society. They feel that so many people did not sacrifice their lives just for a fresh election. They want to ensure a state structure where no autocratic rule like Hasina’s can rise up again. This requires certain reforms, including reforms of the constitution and the election system. They want to make sure of this before the election. The students feel that if a parliament is formed through an election under the existing constitution, there is no guarantee that it will reform or rewrite the constitution.
An autocratic leader like Sheikh Hasina was ousted at the cost of much bloodshed, but in literal terms, this cannot be called a revolution (though many feel that 5 August created possibilities of a revolution). But this was no typical uprising. The uprising of 1990 and the July uprising are not the same. Not so many people gave their lives in 1990, not so many people took to the streets. The July uprising had some elements of revolutionary zeal and stance. This uprising generated much aspiration among the students and the public. The students have the fear of a new election leading back to the old system and the people who took part in the uprising have similar apprehensions. Many have also been gripped with the fear that the mass uprising may ultimately fail.
In the meantime, the stand of BNP and certain other political parties who backed in the mass uprising, is different. They want elections soon, they want a framework for the election. They feel that the reforms or any other changes that are required, will be carried out by the elected government. They are putting pressure on the government in various way to hold the election very soon.
Meanwhile, chief advisor of the interim government Professor Muhammad Yunus in his 16 December speech announced a possible timeframe for the election. His government has several commissions for reforms. His government probably wanted to carry out reforms and hold the election. However, from his Victory Day address it is clear that he has moved away from his position.
Professor Muhammad Yunus said, “I have repeatedly appealed to you about completing all the major reforms and then going on to hold the election. But due to political consensus if, and I repeat ‘if’, we have to draw up an accurate voters list and hold the election, then perhaps it will be possible to hold the election towards the end of 2025. And if we add to a reasonable degree the reforms based on the recommendations of the electoral process and election reforms commission, then it may take at least another six months more. Broadly speaking, the date for the election can be fixed for the end of 2025 or the first half of 2026.”
Mistrust between the student community that led the mass uprising and the major political force that helped in organising the mass uprising, BNP, have made the political situation murky
It is clear that he had come up with the possible timeframe for the elections following the demands of BNP and certain political parties. We recall that in an earlier interview he had said, a four-year term is being considered for the interim government and the term of any interim government should not be longer than that of an elected government. It was then assumed that the interim government’s term may be three to three and a half years.
There was no lack of clarity about the possible timeframe for the election in Professor Muhammad Yunus’ 16 December speech. He clearly said that the election would be held between the end of this year and the middle of 2026. He also announced the formation of a national consensus council to establish a consensus concerning the proposals being made by the reform commissions. He had given a roadmap for the elections to be held in the basis of consensus with the political parties. Professor Yunus’ speech, however, could not appease BNP. The party held a meeting and expressed their disappointment. BNP does not find the chief advisor’s election timeframe to be reasonable.
The BNP secretary general said. “We had hoped that the chief advisor would present a roadmap within a specific timeframe. He did not do so. This has disappointed us to an extent and, at the same time, has disappointed the nation. Why is BNP disappointed? It is clear that BNP is filled with various apprehensions. They cannot place their full confidence in this announcement. BNP is an old political party and they will not have unfounded concerns. There must be reasons for their concern.
Over the past few months BNP leaders have been referring to the minus theory, depoliticisation and such. Only recently BNP’s standing committee member Amir Khasru Mahmud Chowdhury said, minus two aspirations will never be fulfilled. He said, election is the first step to establishing democracy in Bangladesh. Election is the first reform. He said, “Those who talk about minus two here, are voicing their wishful thinking. That will never be fulfilled. Ershad failed to do that, and this couldn’t be done in 1/11. And BNP is now stronger than ever. It cannot be wiped out.”
It is clear that BNP is apprehensive about the depolticisation of the political minus theory. They even believe that there is a certain quarter actively working to eliminate them. The fallen Awami League and its allies parties are not longer in the political field. BNP is now the largest active political party in the country. A distance may have grown with Jamaat, but in the new circumstances new allies have emerged. The question is, being the largest political party in the country, why does BNP have any apprehensions? Who can be such a big and powerful opponent that can cause BNP concern?
The students who led the mass uprising are now in the process of forming a political party. The present interim government was formed at their behest. They have representation in this government too. At the same time they criticise the government on various issues and put pressure on the government too. The relationship between the students and the government is unclear. But many feel that the formation of a political party by the students is an attempt to create a King’s Party. There are also allegations of the involvement of the intelligence in creating the new political party. There are questions about their source of funds. All this is possibly a cause of concern for BNP.
Differences over various issues, suspicions and mistrust between the student community that led the mass uprising and the major political force that helped in organising the mass uprising, BNP, have made the political situation. Unless a consensus is established on a minimum number of issues at least, uncertainty will simply increase in the country’s political arena. One cannot discard the students’ apprehensions that elections without reforms may simply be a return to the old trend of politics. That’s what past experience says. As it is, extortion has simply changed hands. Forced occupation and control of various areas continues all over the country. At the same time, BNP’s apprehensions will not dissipate unless there is transparency in the process of the students forming a political party, the role of the government or intelligence agencies, their source of income, etc.
The topple of Sheikh Hasina in the mass uprising is certainly a huge achievement, but this should not be the only achievement. If the student community that led the mass uprising and the assisting political parties cannot maintain a unity, then we will simply have to be satisfied with the fall of Hasina. The aspirations for a new state that emerged among the students and the general people, will remain a pipe dream.
prothom alo
