 | | Sheikh Hasina's alliance has won the majority of seats of parliament.(Reuters photo) | The overwhelming victory of the Awami League and the "grand alliance" of parties from "right" to "left" led by Sheikh Hasina Wazed in the 29 December National election is definitely going to be studied by political analysts and historians for the sheer surprise of the result. Hasina's alliance has won the majority of seats and defeated the four-party alliance led by Khaleda Zia of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). Khaleda's alliance included the Jamaat-i-Islami party. The Awami League won 235 of parliament's 299 seats according to the unofficial results. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party drastically reduced to 30 seats, slightly ahead of the Jatiya Party that won 27 seats. Jamat-i-Islami also reduced to 2 seats while independent and others won 5 seats. With Jatiya Party and other allies, the Awami League will have a commanding 262-seat majority. Despite certain irregularities, violence, and a post-election incident of death, it is difficult to raise any major allegations against the process of the election. The choice of the people of Bangladesh is loud and clear: The military-backed regime must go in order to make room for an elected government.
| People have massively participated in the polls, women and young generations in particular, to vote the leaders of their choice to power. | Military Out
The de-politicisation process initiated by the so-called "minus two" theory— which views eliminating the two women leaders of the two major political parties, Hasina and Khaleda— has failed. Implicit and explicit denial of the role of political leaders as agents of political reform and change was not accepted by the people. People have massively participated in the polls, women and young generations in particular, to vote the leaders of their choice to power. Massive turn out of the voters was also a move to foil possible hidden designs, if any, that might have disrupted the right of the people to elect their own government. The bizarre "Caretaker" regime, not accountable to people, has been ruling by enacting ordinances. This regime's extension for nearly two years could hardly be explained and legitimised by the existing constitutional provisions. This is still a critical issue and it is yet to be seen how these legal complicacies are solved. The declaration of the state of emergency and abrogation of the constitutional and human rights were criticised by the human rights defenders. The massive poll of vote to end such regime must be read as a strong political statement against the bilateral and multilateral donors who sponsored and supported such regime uncritically. Blatantly blaming political parties and the political processes for all the malaise of governance has also been rejected by the people. The consequences of the neo-liberal economic policies of the past decades and the culture of corruption installed by the development partners themselves should be always taken into account. A regime run largely by World Bank bureaucrats or people coming from non-governmental background with neo-liberal policy orientation or those supported by the military was not considered healthy by the Bangladeshi people. Nevertheless, the regime of Fakhruddin Ahmed, chief adviser of the present "caretaker" government should at least be appreciated for the efforts made to conduct a credible election, despite the fact that the BNP has questioned the puzzling result.
Apprehension for an imbalanced parliament with literally one party rule poses unsettling questions about the future political course of the country. The success of the people of Bangladesh to end the non-political regime and bring electoral processes at the centre of politics is a sign of political sanity that has prevailed so far in all quarters of power and politics, including the army and the bureaucracy. No matter how the result is going to transform the domestic class and power relations and future course of politics, Bangladeshis have loudly made it widely clear that the propaganda that the 150 million Muslim-majority country has turned into a haven of Islamic militants is pathologically malicious. Secondly, that the country is on the brink of eroding into a "failed state" is equally nonsense, given the fact that economic viability of the country and the political awareness and motivation of the Bangladeshi people are great in general. | Claiming the event as unqualified "secular victory" by the Time magazine is also wrong. | Unreal View The perception of the developed countries that they have a stake in this election, with nearly 200,000 election observers from many countries, has also proved misplaced. The diplomatic community, who has been intervening into the domestic political affairs of the country and is persistently violating the Vienna Convention, must be happy now with the outcome. But it still remains a major hindrance for the Bangladeshis to take a democratic course of their own future. The question of sovereignty and the people's power to decide their own affairs are still far cries, given the unequal political and economic status of Bangladesh in the region as well as globally. The malicious propaganda, to discipline and punish the people who are perceived as threat to regional and global security, perhaps will still continue, since the 150 million people are strategically crucial for the west within the paradigm of "war on terror". Bangladesh is vulnerable because of her rich coal, gas, oil reserves, minerals, biodiversity, and other resources. In an online feature entitled "A Secular Victory in Bangladesh Election", The Time observed that "the world fears that if Bangladesh would stumble this time then it would become a breeding ground for terrorists and extremists wishing to operate in south and Southeast Asia." It is clear now that these are inflated claims designed to accommodate economic, strategic, and geopolitical interests of the powerful countries rather than an honest understanding of the realities the people of Bangladesh face in a complex and competitive world, where struggle over energy, food, and livelihood is becoming more and more intense and precarious. Claiming the event as unqualified "secular victory" by the Time magazine is also wrong. The Awami League in its manifesto has clearly indicated that the party is not going to enact any "laws repugnant to Quran and Sunnah" (Article 21.3 of Awami League's Manifesto) and ''due respect will be shown to the principles and values of all religions". This is a qualitatively significant shift and deviation from the "secular" politics and extremely important manifestation of the role religion, particularly Islam, plays in the life and politics of the people of Bangladesh. It is important to note that the Awami League has also made an alliance with the Jatiya Party, an arch-enemy of "secularists" and democratic forces because of its role in enacting the 8th Amendment of the constitution and in keeping the country under the military dictatorship for nearly a decade. The 8th Amendment, declaring Islam as the religion of the state, fundamentally changed the character of the Bangladeshi constitution. The electoral victory of 29 December is also for such forces and rightwing politics. The delightful rhetoric one observes in western and Indian media is not for "secularism", mainly because in the Awami League they see convergence of their own economic and geo-strategic interests. The Awami League has succeeded in effectively echoing the regional and international concerns particularly against Islamic militants. | The transition from an unconstitutional government to an elected one is the positive side of the 29 December election. | Immediate Challenges
What are the immediate challenges? It is still uncertain if the four-party alliance is going to accept the result and join the parliament. Secondly, given the past experience, it is yet to see how the Awami League is going to act as the new ruler of the country. An absolute majority in the parliament could be very tempting indeed. Lack of political prudence may end up into a political disaster in such a situation precipitating alienation from the people who voted the Party to power, coupled with dictatorial tendencies. In fact, in order to oust the BNP and Khaleda's allies, Bangladeshis have opted to have a parliament that will literally have very weak opposition, or if Khaleda decides not to take oath, no opposition at all Sheikh Hasina succeeded to draw the poor masses to cast vote in favour of her Party and its alliance with promises to reduce the price of rice and to distribute fertilizers and pesticides to the farmer for free. She promised women to provide free education up to the graduate level, and young voters a "digital Bangladesh" that culturally means to own digital gadgets. Allure of these promises proved very effective to get the landslide victory, but it can turn unpleasant if Sheikh Hasina fails to keep her promises. The transition from an unconstitutional government to an elected one is the positive side of the 29 December elections. However, such transition is not "democracy" yet. Democracy is not merely election. Among others, such as founding the state on democratic constitution, it is also the capacity to keep the people united despite political differences, or even antagonism.
Bangladesh did not fare very well on this score. All we can expect now is hope for the future. | 