Bangladeshi public intellectual Afsan Chowdhury says that this is because countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh failed to imbibe the constitutional norms of British rule, unlike India and Sri Lanka.
Even 53 years after gaining independence, Bangladesh has yet to establish a stable system for transferring power from one government to another.
Governments have also been shaky, fearing either the restive masses or the powerful military. Even military rulers were insecure because of factionalism within the ranks, which was often violent and deadly.
From 1971 to 1990, governance was patently undemocratic. The very first Bangladeshi regime, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, was anything but democratic. It was also violently overthrown by a faction of the army in August 1975. But Sheikh Mujib’s removal did not bring stability, and and two more military coups followed in 1975.
Eventually, Army Chief Gen. Ziaur Rahman took over and restored order, assuming full power in 1977. Zia purged the army of revolutionary, leftist, and pro-Mujib officers.
Zia, however, put Bangladesh on the geopolitical map of South Asia by founding SAARC, and moving closer to Pakistan in preference to India. In 1978, he created the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) to compete with Sheikh Hasina’s pro-Indian Awami League in elections. But his intolerant streak crushed dissent had bred intolerance in turn. He was assassinated by a faction of the army in 1981.
Zia was replaced by another military dictator, Gen. H.M. Ershad. He contributed to Bangladesh in the field of economic development. But he was a dictator. A massive all-party agitation forced him to quit in 1990, handing over power to a non-partisan Caretaker Government.
In the 1991 elections, the BNP, led by Khaleda Zia, received 30.81% of the vote, while the Awami League, led by Sheikh Hasina, received 30.03%. However, under the First Past the Post system, the BNP won more seats and formed the government with Khaleda Zia as Prime Minister.
The Awami League demanded that Bangladesh switch from a presidential to a parliamentary system, with the Prime Minister as the Chief Executive. Consequently, the BNP government passed the Twelfth Constitutional Amendment, restoring the parliamentary form of government.
After 15 years of military rule, Bangladesh appeared on the path to becoming a democracy, with a broad consensus on governance. However, concerns over the neutrality of electoral institutions and the need to sustain patron–client relations fuelled political antagonism and violence. Ruling parties sought to weaken the opposition through human rights violations.
In 1994, the Awami League accused the ruling BNP of political thuggery, holding mass protests, strikes, and blockades to demand a non-partisan Caretaker Government that would ensure free and fair elections. The BNP argued that such an unelected body would be unconstitutional. The Awami League boycotted the February 1996 elections, allowing the BNP to return to power unopposed.
However, BNP rule was unpopular. The party was eventually compelled to concede to the Awami League’s demand for a Caretaker Government to oversee elections. Parliament passed the Thirteenth Amendment to enable this.
In the June 1996 re-elections, under a Caretaker Government, the Awami League won. Ahead of the 2001 elections, the Awami League handed over power to a Caretaker Government. The BNP won the 2001 elections.
But the BNP regime remained unpopular. In 2006, ahead of the 2007 elections, political turmoil erupted. The BNP and the Awami League locked horns over choosing a candidate to head the Caretaker Government before fresh elections could take place.
In October 2006, President Iajuddin Ahmed declared himself head of the Caretaker Government and announced that elections would be held in January 2007. However, on 11 January 2007, Army Chief Lt General Moeen Ahmed staged a military coup. He formed a military-backed Caretaker Government with Fakhruddin Ahmed, an economist, as its head. President Iajuddin Ahmed remained as the country’s President.
The Fakhruddin Ahmed-led Caretaker Government launched an anti-corruption drive, imprisoning several prominent politicians, including Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia of the BNP. This alienated the public.
In the 2008 elections, the Awami League was swept to power. In June 2011, the Awami League-dominated parliament passed the Fifteenth Constitutional Amendment, which abolished the Caretaker Government system.
As a consequence, the BNP boycotted the parliamentary elections in January 2014. In January 2015, antagonisms between political parties escalated again, drawing Bangladesh into yet another round of intense violence. The Awami League accused the BNP of terrorism and arrested over 10,000 opposition activists, with more than 60 people killed. The BNP then felt there was no option but to boycott all elections not conducted under a new Caretaker Government.
Thus, Bangladesh came to be run as a de-facto one-party Awami League government under Sheikh Hasina. This lasted till August 2024.
The absolute power Hasina acquired corrupted her absolutely. With the BNP weakened by arrests of its leaders, and no effective opposition in place, the aggrieved masses took the law into their own hands and unseated Hasina. On 5 August 2024, following a month-and-a-half-long widespread agitation that left more than 1,000 dead, Sheikh Hasina fled the country.
The mass movement, led by university students, was intended to restore democracy. However, democracy has yet to be restored. Parliament was dissolved, and MPs fled for their lives. A Council was formed to advise President Mohammed Shahabuddin, with Nobel Laureate Dr Muhammad Yunus as Chief Advisor.
The Advisory Council is planning structural reforms through six committees. It has ruled out elections until the system is reformed. However, democracy advocates argue this is “putting the cart before the horse,” as the movement’s goal was to restore democracy through consultation, not by postponing elections.
Recently, President Mohammed Shahabuddin threw a spanner in the works when he told Matiur Rahan Chowdhury, the editor of Manab Zamin, that he had “no documentary evidence of Sheikh Hasina’s resignation.” The President told Chowdhury that he had expected Hasina to submit a resignation letter to him on 5 August, but instead, the Army Chief Gen. Waker-uz-Zaman arrived, informing him that Hasina had left the country.
The President’s interview with Manab Zamin was interpreted to mean he still deemed Sheikh Hasina to be the Prime Minister of Bangladesh and viewed the interim government and the Council of Advisors as lacking legitimacy.
Some even darkly hinted that the President, being an appointee of Sheikh Hasina, might be part of a plot to bring her back, thereby obstructing moves to present her before the Bangladesh War Crimes Tribunal on serious charges.
Others argued that the army, rather than the President, was seeking Hasina’s return, as the Manab Zamin editor was known to be “close” to the army, and Army Chief Gen. Waker-uz-Zaman is relative of Hasina.
Those who had agitated for a month to oust Hasina stormed the Presidential palace, Bangabhaban, demanding Shahabuddin’s resignation. Police opened fire, injuring at least three young protesters. The Law Advisor in the Council of Advisors declared that President Shahabuddin unfit for office.
Eventually, President Shahabuddin apologised for his comments. To his credit, he never declared the successor Interim Government led by Muhammad Yunus illegitimate. Being a jurist, Shahabuddin was aware that Bangladeshi courts had legitimised governments established by unconventional means, including military coups, on several occasions in the past.
Challenges to state authority in Bangladesh have generally stemmed from the inability of institutions to ensure power-sharing and consensual decision-making effectively. Political will for electoral reform has been elusive, as an alternative system could jeopardise the prospect of controlling state resources for personal gain. Greed has become the primary motivation in Bangladeshi politics.
According to Bangladeshi public intellectual Afsan Chowdhury, if constitutional power transfer continues to elude Bangladesh, it is because it has not embraced the constitutional values British rule instilled in India and Sri Lanka. While India and Sri Lanka faithfully adopted the British legacy, Pakistan and Bangladesh charted a different path.