THE democratic aspirations that Bangladeshis have nurtured, despite the former Sheikh Hasina-led government鈥檚 decade-long stringent suppression of dissent, have paved the way for a fresh political discourse through the July uprising. Riding the wave of renewed hope, the demand for a new political landscape has become stronger than ever. However, what is becoming increasingly concerning is the hesitancy amongst a faction to accommodate in that envisaged fresh landscape the politics of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, the primary opposition to the now-discredited Bangladesh Awami League. While this approach may appear to some as a moral stand against the political conflicts and mistrust of the past, it is, at best, naive when viewed through the pragmatic lens of Bangladesh鈥檚 political reality. At worst, it could prove dangerous if carried out.
This perspective overlooks a fundamental principle of democracy: true democratic institutions must allow representation from all sectors of society. While such inclusivity raises valid concerns about the Awami League鈥檚 return to the political arena of Bangladesh, it is evident that the party has forfeited its moral and political legitimacy to return to national politics in the foreseeable future. Its role in the massacre of unarmed citizens during the July-August uprising has left an indelible mark, and the consensus among many is that any attempt at the rehabilitation of the Awami League must be preceded by accountability for their crimes. This opinion has also been categorically expressed by some of the advisors in the interim government, particularly those who were at the forefront of the July-August uprising.
However, it is important to recognise that the absence of a formidable political counterweight to the BNP could have grave consequences. Without a balanced political landscape, BNP could gain unchecked power, potentially leading to the very authoritarianism that the country seeks to escape. Such a scenario would only replace one form of political domination with another, ultimately stifling democratic aspirations once more.
On the other hand, any deliberate attempt to shrink the political space where the BNP can legitimately operate undermines the democratic principles. Trying to marginalise a party that still commands the loyalty of a significant portion of the population risks alienating a broad base of political support, which was the case during the 15-year reign of Hasina. In this sense, trying to limit the political coefficient of the BNP might be seen as a renewed manifestation of the very fascism against which the people of Bangladesh recently revolted.
Given these two extreme scenarios, one may advocate for a course that may involve fostering the development of new political movements that can reflect the aspirations of Bangladesh鈥檚 disillusioned populace. Calls for the student leaders of the July uprising to form their own political party have gained momentum, fuelled by their popularity and the demand for fresh political leadership. While these calls are a natural expression of popular will, it would be fundamentally flawed to expect the state to take on the role of nurturing these movements. The state鈥檚 responsibility lies not in sponsoring political parties but in creating an environment conducive to their organic development. This means ensuring a level playing field where new parties can emerge without institutional impediments, while established ones like the BNP are held accountable to democratic norms.
The role of the state in this context is twofold: to ensure the integrity of its institutions and to guard against the excesses of established political players. A democratic state does not orchestrate the formation of political alternatives; rather, it guarantees the freedoms that allow these alternatives to flourish. The BNP, for all its faults and historical baggage, must operate within this framework, cognizant that its actions will be judged not only by its supporters but by the wider electorate, particularly in a post-uprising context.
The growing sentiment to sideline BNP, whether through targeted social media campaigns challenging the BNP鈥檚 contribution to the July uprising or public disparagement by certain emerging political figures, does not serve the goal of democratic consolidation in Bangladesh. One needs to understand that attempts, however subtle, to erode the BNP鈥檚 legitimacy could set a dangerous precedent, contributing to future polarisation and disenfranchisement. After all, true political stability will come not from the selective exclusion of any one group but from fostering an environment where all political voices can participate constructively in shaping the nation鈥檚 future. This argument, however, does not extend to the Awami League, whose actions, particularly during the July-August uprising, have raised serious concerns about its moral and political legitimacy.
In conclusion, the path forward requires an open, competitive political environment where all legitimate actors 鈥� who have not engaged in actions that directly subvert democratic principles 鈥� are allowed to participate. Only by ensuring that no group wields unchecked power can Bangladesh build a more resilient and stable democracy.
听
Dr Tasneem Raihan is a Bangladeshi American financial economist.