Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Future looks fraught in polarised Bangladesh
It is a story worthy of great theatre: the bitter rivalry between two women that is tearing apart a country.
Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia head the two main political parties of
have swapped power back and forth for the last 20 years. Bangladesh
The relationship between the two “battling begums” has come under international scrutiny recently, after
suffered the most violent election in its short history. More than 100 people
died during the campaign, with the country disrupted by strikes, blockades, and
violent clashes between police and opposition supporters. Bangladesh
The controversy started well before the country went to the polls on 5 January. Since 1996,
has held elections under a neutral caretaker government. In 2010, Hasina’s
Awami League party, buoyed by a strong parliamentary majority, decided to
abolish the provision. The opposition, Zia’s Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)
took issue with this, saying that a fair election could not be guaranteed
without a neutral body overseeing it. The Awami League would not set up a
caretaker government. The BNP boycotted the election. Bangladesh
Hasina decided to go ahead with the poll. Inevitably, her party – unopposed in 153 of the country’s 300 constituencies – won. But, equally inevitably, the validity of a contest in which there was only one real option has been questioned. The election result was also undermined by an unusually low turnout, with the government putting the figure at under 40 per cent and others reporting far less than that.
This was not just to do with voters choosing not to vote, but with a systematic campaign of intimidation and violence by supporters of the opposition BNP. Enforcing blockades, strikes, and boycotts, supporters of the BNP and their allies, the Jamaat-e-Islami, petrol bombed buses carrying workers, and set fire to shops that had opened in defiance of the strikes.
“The violence perpetrated against people who have not complied with the opposition call is a criminal act and it is the responsibility of the government to bring the attackers to justice,” says
researcher for Amnesty International. “But the majority of people who died
during the two months of elections died from gunshot wounds. There is a strong
possibility the police may have used excessive force.” Amnesty is calling for
immediate investigations to identify the perpetrators of attacks, and to
establish whether the force used by police was lawful. In a statement, UN
Secretary General Ban Ki Moon called on “all sides to exercise restraint and
ensure first and foremost a peaceful and conducive environment, where people
can maintain their right to assembly and expression.” Abbas
tend to be big public events, with people getting up early to join famously
long queues and proudly displaying their ink stained fingers. Yet people in the
capital Bangladesh Dhaka during this year’s election
described an eerie calm. Voting took place in just nine of 20 seats in the
city. There were vicious attacks on the country’s Hindu minority, who make up
around 10 per cent of the population and tend to support the Awami League.
The consensus seems to be that both of the main parties are equally culpable for the farce that the election has descended into. An editorial in the country’s Daily Star newspaper said that the Awami League had won “a predictable and hollow victory, which gives it neither a mandate nor an ethical standing to govern effectively”. Its verdict on Zia and her associates was no better: “Political parties have the right to boycott elections. But what is unacceptable is using violence and intimidation to thwart an election.”
The election chaos comes after a year of ugly political violence in
around 500 people were killed in political clashes during 2013, making it one
of the most violent years since independence in 1971. This began with a mass
popular movement against religious fundamentalism. Named the Shahbag movement,
after the area of Bangladesh Dhaka where it began, the
protests swiftly triggered a backlash from the religious right and their
supporters. Much of this polarisation – between secularists and Islamists – had
been precipitated by the government’s war crimes tribunal. Prosecuting people
for crimes committed during the war of independence in 1971, the tribunal has
reopened old tensions. Islamists claim it is being used to shut down the
opposition, while secularists argue that the sentences (which include the death
penalty) are not harsh enough.
Now, several weeks after the election, the political system remains in crisis. Zia is effectively under house arrest, while Hasina’s victory is seen across the board as empty. International and domestic observers alike say that the only way forward is for the two women to sit down together and hammer out a compromise. With early elections expected within the next 18 months, and with political uncertainty and violence continuing, this is ever more pressing.
This article was published on 21 January 2014 at indexoncensorship.org