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.

It is a fundamental principle of justice that any person accused of a crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. This is to ensure the legal rights of the accused throughout a trial. The case of jailed BNP leaders Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir and Mirza Abbas appears to be a contravention of that principle. Their bail petitions in a case filed over the December 7 clash between BNP activists and police have been rejected for the fourth time now.

As we know, since that clash, hundreds of leaders and activists of the BNP and its front organisations have been arrested. Mirza Fakhrul, the party's secretary general, and Mirza Abbas, a member of its standing committee, were arrested in the early hours of December 9, on charges of inciting violence. While these arrests follow the well-established political strategy of rounding up opposition activists after any clash, one expects the judicial process to follow its own course and take decisions impartially. However, the repeated denial of bail to Fakhrul and Abbas raises concerns about that process.

Read more

AL's strategy of intimidation may no longer be working

To be clear, we're not commenting on the merit of charges brought against them. Their guilt or innocence is for the court to establish. But until that has happened – and so long as they're not flight risks, which they are not – they deserve to get bail like everyone else. Importantly, their names were not even in the First Information Report (FIR) of the case in which they were implicated, while two other BNP leaders – Amanullah Aman and Abdul Kader Bhuiyan – whose names were there in the FIR of the same case were already granted bail by another court. Why this discrepancy? Why different bail decisions in the same case? Are we to accept a breach of legal principles here, and presume them guilty until proven innocent? Who will account for the time they are kept behind bars if they are eventually proven innocent, or if this case drags on indefinitely, which most political cases tend to do?

Read more

Pursuit of peace through violence?

We're talking about two top leaders of our main opposition party. Both are veteran politicians, hold high ranks in their party, and have had ministerial portfolios during BNP's last term in office. They are also reportedly sick, leading to the court directing jail authorities to provide them with proper treatment. Their social status and physical conditions alone would have merited a bail consideration. Unfortunately, in recent years, there have been many instances of bail denials in cases involving rival politicians and government critics. Should we see them as a mere coincidence, or is there any external influence behind such decisions?

We hope the judiciary will reconsider the bail petitions of jailed BNP leaders. It will only help its image and credibility among the public at a time when the judiciary is facing a challenge to establish rule of law amid a complex interplay of legal loopholes, institutional barriers, lack of resources, and intense political pressures that are making justice difficult to deliver. We hope it will rise to that challenge.

On the same day that the home minister told journalists that law enforcement agencies would not restrict BNP if they hold peaceful programmes, one BNP activist was killed allegedly by police fire while scores were injured after a procession was blocked by police in Bhola. According to local BNP activists, who were protesting the rise in fuel prices and load shedding in the country, they had taken verbal permission to organise a rally and a procession. However, the police contest that the party did not take permission for the procession specifically, and that BNP supporters hurled brick chips and glass bottles at them when they intercepted it.

Read more

1 killed as police, BNP activists clash in Bhola

Let us assume that the police version of events is the correct one. Let us put aside the fact that in an ideal society, you would not need to request permission to exercise your right to protest. Let us also accept that it was the BNP protesters who became violent first. Even in these circumstances, is it fair for the police to use live bullets to bring a situation "under control"? Can the police become judge, jury and executioner and end the life of a man for hurling brick chips? Are there no methods of maintaining law and order other than using such excessive force? Equally importantly, what message does it send to the opposition political camp, especially when BNP is refusing to participate in the upcoming national election fearing undue interferences from the ruling party?

Read more

No bar on BNP to hold peaceful demos: minister

BNP activist Abdur Rahim is not the first person in the past week to have been killed after police interventions. On July 27, seven-month-old Sumaiya was shot in her mother's lap during election violence in Thakurgaon. On that evening too, the police were attacked by supporters of a defeated contestant, and apparently they opened fire in self-defence. The fact that an infant ended up being killed demonstrates just how reckless this firing must have been. Despite there being a provision in the police code for firing into the ground to frighten rioters, or at knee height to cause injury, we continue to see deaths as a result of lethal force from the police.

Every public institution run with taxpayers' money must be accountable to the people. This is all the more crucial for law enforcement agencies who are the only force legally empowered to detain, question, threaten, and sometimes even take the life of a citizen. A force with such power must adhere to the highest ethical standards, and follow procedure to the letter. Yet, what we continue to witness in Bangladesh can only be described as an abuse of power and a miscarriage of justice. Without accountability and immediate reforms, we fear more citizens will continue to die or suffer at the hands of law enforcement agencies.