Is democracy on its deathbed again?

Last week, the entire nation was gripped by anxiety and apprehension, with the prospect of the country facing an upheaval, bringing in dangerous uncertainty. Regrettably, that is exactly what unfolded. Some had held on to the faint hope that the ongoing protests might serve as a catalyst for addressing the structural and organisational challenges surrounding the impending election. However, as time passed, those hopes began to wane.

The current situation, marked by strikes and blockades, bears an uncanny resemblance to the problematic events of 1995-96, when the BNP held the reins of power. During that period, the Awami League ignited a demand for a caretaker government during the election period, a movement that was joined by Jamaat-e-Islami and Jatiya Party. However, the BNP initially chose not to endorse this demand, leaving the BNP's subordinate parties as the sole opposition. This fueled the movement further, leading to prolonged strikes and blockades that persisted for days and weeks. At a certain juncture, the BNP itself introduced the caretaker government clause into the constitution through parliamentary proceedings while it was in power.

The genesis of the concept of a caretaker government can be traced back to the movement against the dictatorship of Ershad. This idea emerged from the realisation that, from 1973, no "proper" elections were held under a political party's rule, giving rise to doubts that elections under a ruling party could ever be fair in Bangladesh. The system gained momentum through its temporary enactment by officials, led by Chief Justice Shahbuddin Ahmed, in 1991 and was eventually inscribed in the constitution after the protests of 1996. Subsequent elections were conducted in accordance with this new constitutional provision in 1996, 2001, and 2008.

However, despite coming to power in 2008 through an election overseen by a caretaker government, the Awami League opted to remove this clause from the constitution, reverting to elections under the control of the ruling political party, as we witnessed in the 2014 and 2018 elections. In 2008, AL secured a monumental electoral victory, presenting an opportunity to reform the constitution and prioritise democracy. Instead, the constitution was utilised for establishing the party's authoritarian rule.

The 2014 election was notably one-sided, with over 153 MPs securing victory without any opposition. The 2018 election demonstrated an unprecedented level of election engineering, marked by extensive ballot stuffing the night before the official election. In light of this, we can say the last government to be widely accepted was the one elected in 2008. Subsequent elections have been filled with irregularities, leaving us with the feeling the current government we have is an illegitimate one that has overstayed its rule.

The extended tenure in power and the handling of the last two elections by AL have illuminated that Bangladesh has yet to develop the capability to conduct elections under the stewardship of a ruling political party. The demand for a caretaker government is not exclusive to the BNP; it resonates with almost all citizens who yearn for genuine elections and democracy. Therefore, aside from AL and its allies, many people refer to it by different names such as an interim government, temporary government, or caretaker government, but the core idea remains the same.

Regrettably, Awami League has not aligned with this popular demand. In an attempt to oppose, suppress, and ultimately quash the movement, it has resorted to employing force, resulting in a substantial transformation of the political landscape in Bangladesh. The state has grown more authoritarian, violent, divisive, and intolerant.

During this government's tenure, there have been visible infrastructural (building bridges, roads) developments. However, many of those have been accompanied by unchecked corruption and environmental risks masquerading as development activities. In the political arena, there is a glaring lack of accountability; any wrongdoing remains unquestioned and unaddressed. The current situation reflects a poor state of administrative bodies, the legal system, and the media.

The National Human Rights Commission, Anti-Corruption Commission, Election Commission, judicial system, and public universities have all forgotten their dignified role, now serving the ruling party's interests, creating a colossal crisis. While a country necessitates a government, it also requires various public bodies to ensure accountability and public interest.

The media needs to play a vital role in scrutinising the government's actions and informing the public, while the justice system needs to uphold legality and impartiality. In the current situation, none of these organisational bodies, which are meant to check the power of the ruling party, are functioning effectively. The police and the political party have become intertwined, exerting unilateral force, and the media is tightly controlled.

The image of the state as untouchable has yielded other far-reaching implications. The banking sector has spiralled out of control, leading to the emergence of family dynasties amassing wealth through dishonest means. Wealth disparity has soared, and natural resources like rivers, forests, and land have been exploited with disastrous effect.

The authoritarian system has cast a wide net over all these issues. Universities, once bastions of critical thought, have also fallen under authoritarian influence, creating a generation that struggles to hold organisational bodies accountable. This situation is not solely about a political party remaining in power through flawed elections; it poses long-term implications of organised corruption and unchecked wrongdoing, as well as a generation unfamiliar with the concept of accountability.

The relationship between citizens and the nation-state is being irreparably damaged. Just the other day, garment labourers protesting the decrease in their minimum wage, which had significantly diminished due to inflation and rising essential prices, were met with police and ruling party men's violence, resulting in the tragic death of two workers and many injuries. These labourers already earn a meagre wage that cannot cover their basic human rights. Is it too much to ask for their voices to be heard?

Our freedom of speech and expression are intrinsically linked to this issue. The future generation's ability to learn and shape a better future, both for themselves and the country, hinges on the conduct of a fair election. It is unacceptable that a small segment of the population holds all the power and wealth without being held accountable for their actions. Elections are the embodiment of the people's freedom, and when elections are not fair and inclusive of all parties, it signifies a lack of space for freedom of expression and the demise of democracy.

After 52 years of independence, after ensuring voting rights and freedom of speech, we were supposed to be discussing ways to decrease disparities and discrimination, focusing on building a sustainable future, protecting our rivers and forests, and addressing issues related to gender, class, ethnic and religious discrimination. However, the reality is that we find ourselves back where we started, collectively fighting for the very principles our independence was built upon: equality, social justice and human dignity.

Translated by Monorom Polok of The Daily Star.

Anu Muhammad is a former professor of economics at Jahangirnagar University.

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.