Advocate Sultana Kamal, a human rights activist and the founder president of Manabadhikar Shongskriti Foundation, speaks with Eresh Omar Jamal of The Daily Star about Bangladesh's 12th parliamentary election and its ramifications for the country's political and governance landscapes.

With BNP boycotting the January 7 election, and some of the parties who participated in it bargaining with Awami League for seats beforehand, how would you describe the latest election?

I have been giving my comments on the election which was held on January 7 for months. Now that it has already happened, to me, the event of January 7 cannot be called an "election" by any definition, let alone "a participatory election." We all know the arrangements for distribution of seats between the contesting parties were settled amicably beforehand. The election was held in the name of fulfilling a constitutional obligation, which in reality turned out to be a ritual participated by friendly contestants.

By boycotting the election, didn't BNP give AL a free ride? One could argue that the ruling party created a repressive environment for the opposition prior to the election, but by terming its movement as a movement to "oust the government," what sort of a reaction did BNP expect?

Yes, BNP did.

As I kept saying since the 2014 election, BNP made a big (fatal for them) mistake by not participating in the election. True, they did take part in the 2018 election. But by then, they had already lost their position as a political party strong enough to influence the national political psyche. Insisting on terming their movement as a movement to "oust the government," without posing a viable alternative to the nation, was nothing but a blunder on their part. BNP must have expected considerable support from the general people in the context of Awami League's extremely repressive rule, lack of good governance, and democratic deficit. But its failure to provide a convincing picture of a better future did not yield the expected result for BNP.

Given the election results, who do you expect will be the parliamentary opposition? Will that also be decided by AL? And what effect will all this have on the future of Bangladesh's politics?

It is obvious that there will be no effective parliamentary opposition for at least the next five years as, without a few exceptions, all in the parliament are Awami League's people. It's an open secret that non-Awami League contestants were not only allowed to participate in the election at the wish of the AL leader, their winning a seat, too, was dependent on the same factor. An opposition perhaps will be declared officially as a matter of rule. But there is no reason to believe that it will be without AL's knowledge. I am afraid I don't feel very optimistic about Bangladesh's future under the given condition. However, I will definitely be happy if I am proved wrong.

How would you rate the performance of the Awami League government over the last five years? And do you expect any changes this term?

The Awami League government over the last five years concentrated on heavy, visible infrastructural development, in which they showed considerable success. It was during this period that Bangladesh qualified to graduate from being a least-developed country to a developing one. It has also made some progress in attaining a few of the SDG goals in the fields of women's empowerment, enrolment of female students, extending community health services, etc. Bangladesh's GDP grew impressively. The number of ultra-rich in society increased at unprecedented speed. But at the same time, according to eminent economists, the country's economy plunged into uncertainties. This, compounded with a repressive, exploitative, and unethical political atmosphere, created insecurity for people in social, public, and personal spheres. Though Awami League consistently claimed to have run the country according to the spirit of our Liberation War and the ideals of Bangabandhu, ironically, strengthening of democracy, rule of law, zero tolerance for corruption, and respect for human rights of all, and efforts to create a common humane social culture, seem to have disappeared from their agenda.

As said by many, over the past few years, Bangladesh has been divided into two different "societies." One for the rich and the advantaged, the other for the disenfranchised and disadvantaged. This directly contradicts with our constitutional directives as well as what we stated in our Declaration of Independence. In short, Awami League rulers have failed to rise up to their own declared ideals.

However, during the election campaign, Awami League's leader Sheikh Hasina urged the people of Bangladesh to look at their mistakes leniently. I hope the Awami League government this time will take care not to repeat their past mistakes, which go against the spirit of our Liberation War and create an atmosphere of crisis for democracy and good governance.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.

When the top leadership of the Awami League and BNP, the two major political parties in Bangladesh, ruled out any possibility of talks ahead of the next parliamentary election, the Election Commission appeared in the scene by inviting the BNP to a dialogue.

Suspicious about the sudden invitation, the BNP rejected it outright, calling it "meaningless." Although the EC roadmap, announced late last year, did not say anything about talks with the political parties, it did mention that gaining their trust was a major challenge. But it did not spell out how that trust would be earned.

The EC invitation to BNP came at a time when Awami League and BNP leaders were both meeting with diplomats about the next election. It was widely reported that Western diplomats emphasised holding a free and fair election. To add to the context, the US Department of State has published its annual flagship human rights report where it was mentioned for the first time that the 2018 election was neither free nor fair. Charles Whiteley, the European Union ambassador to Bangladesh, said the EU would not send observers to the next election if it is not participatory. Now, if the international observers don't come, the election's credibility as well as the EC's role will remain under question.

Read more

In which direction is Bangladesh heading?

It could be said that the election authorities only acted responsibly when they invited the main opposition, seeing as the issue of a participatory election is under discussion right now. On the surface, at least, the EC has demonstrated their willingness to hold an inclusive, free and fair election. But one ought to ask what the EC is looking to achieve through these talks. Other than the commission gaining some mileage by showing their attempts, and the political parties playing to the gallery, there is not much that these talks would gain. In that respect, talks with the EC would be rather infructuous.

The invitation letter to the BNP also clarifies some things. While the Election Commission is fully aware of BNP's position regarding an election-time government, there is no comment related to that in the letter. To make any progress with the election, the stumbling blocks must be dealt with, and the commission must have a specific agenda for the talks – for instance, whether to use electronic voting machines (EVMs) or not. The invitation letter does not carry any such details. Then why hold these talks?

The Election Commission may claim that their goal is to ensure an inclusive 12th parliamentary election. But simply saying that is not enough, given the previous EC's complete failure to hold a credible election in 2018, and then even admitting that publicly.

The BNP should have taken time to deliberate over their decision before rejecting the EC invitation. Now they have to explain why they don't want to join the talks. Shunning the possibility of dialogues is not a good option for any political party. The only meaningful explanation could be that holding talks with the EC would, in fact, give it the legitimacy that the BNP has refused from the beginning. But it is unlikely that the main opposition camp has given the matter any such thought.

The incumbent EC could claim that they are different from their predecessors. But then, one could ask what this commission has done to earn the trust of all political parties. The commission's activities so far don't portray them in a favourable light, nor do they indicate sincere intentions. The BNP, which boycotted EC dialogues in June and July last year, has not shown any confidence in the electoral authority since its formation – and even before its formation, since the party did not join the talks initiated by the president and did not propose any name to the search committee of this EC. The party has repeatedly said that the EC would not be able to hold a free, fair and participatory general election.

The lack of trust for the Election Commission deepened when it went ahead with the decision to use EVMs in the upcoming general election, ignoring the objection of many political parties, including the BNP. That decision, while embracing modernity and change, was aligned with the desire of the ruling party.

Undoubtedly, rejecting the dialogue would be a setback for the BNP as it would garner criticism from the ruling party. The EC would be able to say that they tried, but could not bring BNP to the table. BNP leaders would have to remain busy for a few days parrying all the criticism. The party may even face questions from the international community.

Read more

Political dialogues: The long road to nowhere

The BNP should have taken time to deliberate over their decision before rejecting the EC invitation. Now they have to explain why they don't want to join the talks. Shunning the possibility of dialogues is not a good option for any political party. The only meaningful explanation could be that holding talks with the EC would, in fact, give it the legitimacy that the BNP has refused from the beginning. But it is unlikely that the main opposition camp has given the matter any such thought.

Having said all that, the political parties can take advantage of the situation as it suits their strategy, but not the Election Commission, which is a constitutional body and assigned to hold a free, fair and participatory election. Lip service or mere show of effort may not be enough.

Listening to the trials and tribulations of this political reporter, and learning that the EC had invited the opposition to the table, a relative recounted an anecdote about the stingy hosts of a certain part of the country, where guests would often arrive on boats. The story goes like this: in this certain region, the hosts keep mum as the guests get ready to leave and get on their boat to return home, and just when the hosts push off the boat, they say, "I wish you had stayed a few more days with us." But by then the boat is already sailing, and the guests have nothing but to say, "Next time!"

Mohammad Al-Masum Molla is chief reporter at The Daily Star.

Firstly, I find it impossible to call what's happening on January 7 an election in any way. People already know who will occupy government positions, who will sit in opposition, and even who will win which seats. An election without uncertainty, where people lack the power to determine their representatives through voting, is a mere facade of an election.

Read more

What comes after January 7?

Secondly, the voters do not have any real choice. Whether you pick candidates from Awami League, independent candidates (who are really representing AL in disguise), AL ally Jatiya Party, or candidates from any of AL's partner factions, it all leads to the same outcome: an Awami League dominance. Without options for voter representation, the January 7 event cannot be termed an election.

Thirdly, the escalating violence leading up to election day within Awami League factions in about every constituency paints a terrifying picture. I wonder, if this trend of violence continues, whether the drama staged to take place on the 7th will even be possible to conduct.

We already know that only a small group of experts will observe the election and that most major countries will not send their observers. International media outlets have already labelled this election as a "one-woman show" and a "one-horse electoral race."

Read more

‘Why would Awami League need to resort to rigging in this scenario?’

Considering everything, I see no reason to call this an election. It's a pre-written affair, and the public will bear the brunt of its outcome. Bangladesh's economic crisis will worsen, and the suffering we are already enduring will only be amplified in the future.

Rumeen Farhana is barrister-at-law and former whip of Bangladesh Nationalist Party.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.

The contrast between what the government promised opposition political parties and its actions on the ground couldn't be starker, as a rundown on the 22 days of BNP's ongoing countrywide protest programme shows. What the government promised them was – peaceful assembly and freedom of speech. What they are actually having is – violent assembly and fear of speech/reprisals. While this turnabout is politics 101 in Bangladesh, it also begs the question: was the promise of fair play, and the congeniality expressed in the PM's "Will offer BNP leaders tea if they come to besiege my office" comment, at all meant to be taken seriously?

A report by Prothom Alo shows that between August 22 and September 13, violent attacks and clashes were reported in 48 events of BNP organised as part of a countrywide protest programme against the price hikes of fuel and daily essentials and also the deaths of two of its activists in police shooting in Bhola. Multiple people were injured so far, with BNP claiming to have lost three of its activists as of September 4. In 25 places, houses, vehicles and business establishments of its leaders and activists were vandalised, many of them having since left their neighbourhoods in fear of further reprisals. And in 17 places, section 144 was issued because of Awami League events overlapping with BNP's. Finally, 46 cases were filed in 18 districts.

What we're witnessing is downright denial of political space to the opposition camp. It reminds us of the acrimonious circumstances leading up to the controversial 2014 and 2018 elections.

Bizarrely, though, the official line puts the blame for violence on BNP itself, as if the party brought this all on itself in some sick display of self-loathing or to discredit itself. The truth is, it is the police that stands discredited, firstly because of its partisan role in handling the protests, and secondly, because of its heavy-handed and rather collusive legal response. As a breakdown of the 46 clash-related cases illustrates, 29 were filed by the police and 17 by the leaders of Awami League and affiliated organisations, mostly against their rivals in BNP and affiliated organisations. The total number of accused are 21,709. Of them, 2,777 were named and the rest unnamed – a classic formula to allow for more names to be added later. More damningly, however, the abovementioned report says that a number of accused were sick, old or overseas, meaning they were nowhere near the protest sites.

Read more

Attacks on BNP a worrying sign for the future

What we're witnessing is downright denial of political space to the opposition camp. It reminds us of the acrimonious circumstances leading up to the controversial 2014 and 2018 elections. This, it goes without saying, is not amenable to creating the level playing field so essential for a fair, safe, and participatory election. As things stand, the ruling camp, despite what it said officially and despite demands by independent parties to protect people's right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, appears totally unwilling to allow the opposition to reach the ears of the masses.

This is totally unacceptable. We urge the authorities, including the Election Commission, to ensure the opposition is allowed to protest and prepare for the upcoming election. The ruling party must discipline its activists and the police and keep them from infringing upon these inalienable rights of the opposition.

The government has turned down Khaleda Zia's family's application to allow her to be taken abroad for urgent treatment, which her lawyer and her party leaders have termed as a political vendetta. The government's reasoning, as explained by Law Minister Anisul Huq, was that the application, on which the government has suspended the jail sentence of Khaleda Zia and released her from jail on two conditions, has been disposed of and has become a "past and closed transaction." The minister also said that the decision to suspend her sentence was made under Section 401(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

This refusal to allow treatment abroad could not have come at a worse time, as the former prime minister's continuous illness has reached a critical stage, with life-threatening conditions. Besides, political distrust and division in the country over the coming election, too, have become highly charged. Against this context, it is hard to discard the notion that politics played no part in this decision from the government.

Read more

‘Govt wants Khaleda dead’

It is still unclear what rekindled the hope of her family and party that the BNP chief's treatment abroad could be possible, despite the fact that several attempts in the past have been flatly rejected by the government, citing the same law and argument which the law minister has referred to in his latest legal opinion. Reportedly, Khaleda Zia told her partymen not to agree to participating in the next parliamentary election under the current government in exchange for her medical care abroad.

It, therefore, begs this question: was the life of a politician, of such stature, really made a bargaining chip by either of the parties? The question became even more pertinent when the law minister, responding to reporters' queries on September 24, said that the government did not receive any application from her family seeking permission to take her abroad.

It followed the government's decision to extend Khaleda Zia's conditional release from prison for six more months, based on a separate application filed on September 4. As a result of the law minister's suggestive remarks that the family had not sought permission for her treatment abroad, Khaleda's younger brother Shamim Iskander made another application on September 25 seeking the required approval.

Read more

Khaleda has to return to jail first if she wants to go abroad for treatment: PM

Should we believe that the issue of seeking permission afresh was brought about simply to humiliate the political opponent by reminding them of how "powerless" they are? Questions may also arise about whether the arguments of considering the petition "disposed of" and "a past and closed transaction" are tenable.

It is often said that the law will take its own course. But examples are plenty to prove that the incident at hand was simply political rhetoric. If someone compares the fate of the 78-year-old former prime minister with that of some other politicians, such as Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal leader ASM Abdur Rab, the irony becomes evident. The JSD leader was allowed to go to then West Germany for treatment while he was serving his prison term awarded by a martial law court. Another politician, Haji Mohammad Selim – who belongs to the ruling party – was not barred from travelling to Bangkok for his treatment despite being convicted and ordered to surrender, and having had a record of fleeing the country during the tenure of the caretaker government between 2006 and 2008.

Law Minister Anisul Huq said, "Once an application is disposed of under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), there is no scope to reconsider it under the law." Many other jurists, however, do not agree with his interpretation of the law as there is nothing that bars the government or limits its authority to reconsider its decision. Every law is subject to interpretation, and there are variations in interpretations. Among these variations – except the court's interpretation – some are known as literal, and some are mischievous or intended to create mischief.

Read more

Khaleda Zia in politics: Missed chance for BNP?

Amid the contested claims by the government and by BNP, it would be better to read Section 401 of the CrPC and draw one's own conclusion. Under the title "Power to suspend or remit sentences," the law states in Section 401(1), "When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the Government may at any time without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced."

Additionally, Section 401(6) says, "The Government may, by general rules or special orders, give directions as to the suspension of sentences and the conditions on which petitions should be presented and dealt with." As the literal meaning of the rule is far from convincing, it would be wiser for the government to reconsider its decision, which may help improve the current political environment in the country.

Kamal Ahmed is an independent journalist. His X handle is @ahmedka1

Views expressed in this article are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.