It may seem unbelievable to the believers of Pakistan that in Bangladesh the antonym of 'democratization' is 'Pakistanisation'. Ahead of the 12th National Assembly elections, the discourse on 'democratization' versus 'Pakistanization' is becoming relevant due to the jostling of the political forces behind Pakistanisation. The current term of the 11th National Parliament will end on 29 January 2024. Therefore, the 12th National Assembly elections must be held before that. In this context, the issues of 'democratization' versus the destructive tendencies of 'Pakistanization' of Bangladesh are coming to the fore as a big question for the continuation of present process development. The topic of 'democracy' is a very common element in the narrative of politics in Bangladesh. One of the main points of these narratives is that development of Bangladesh is not possible without democracy. This is what is happening in present day Bangladesh under Sheikh Hasina's leadership. 'Democratization' and 'development' are simultaneously present in Bangladesh.
Just as ‘democratization' is necessary for the ‘development’ of this country, so too 'opposing Pakistanization' is more necessary. When we talk about real democracy, the topic of the rights of religious minorities also comes up. The history of the sub-continent suggests that during the days of Pakistan religious colonial rule the rights of religious minorities in the then (East) Pakistan were ignored. On the other hand, the process of 'Pakistanization' can lead to political disenfranchisement of non-dominant minorities in the society. The present extinct condition of the disenfranchised oppressed and helpless religious minorities of Pakistan proves it.
The benevolent tree of independent democratic Bangladesh flourished under the leadership of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on the ashes of undemocratic and human-destroying Pakistan. Under the leadership of his daughter Deshratna Sheikh Hasina, the current democratic Bangladesh is advancing at an unstoppable pace in the direction of development.
The 1970 election was a historic turning point for Bangladesh to achieve independence. Similarly, the 2008 election was a historic turning point for the development of this country. And both these elections were aimed at democratization and against Pakistanisation. The acceptability of these two elections is unquestionable to every political force in the country.
However, the only democratic elections were held in 1970 under the religious colonial state of Pakistan. In that election, the people of this country unconditionally supported the leadership of Bangabandhu and the Awami League. According to the mandate written on the basis of this election, Bangabandhu has taken necessary steps taking into account the history of exploitation-deprivation, oppression-torture on the people of this country. A worthy, strong, brave, honest, patriotic, humanist and visionary leader, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib was able to successfully channel the people's demands into the deadly struggle for political freedom, imbued with the love of the people. Thus the people of this country got the taste of democracy and freedom under the leadership of Bangabandhu and Awami League.
However, crisis may occur at some point during the process of democratization i.e. democratic consolidation. In this regard, American political scientist and author of 'The End of History and the Last Man', Francis Fukuyama, commented that 'patience, not panic' can be the best course of action for the country's political forces during the crisis of democracy. But do the killings of elected head of the government and Father of the Nation along with his family members on August 15, 1975 and jail killings on November 3, 1975 bear the examples of patience? Do the killings of leaders and activists of opposition Awami League by arson attacks on their political rally on August 21, 2004 bear the hallmark of 'patience'? Do the petrol bomb attacks, police killings, attacks on presiding and polling officers to stop elections in 2014, bear the hallmark of 'patience'?
Now again come to the case of 1970’s elections. Some of the leaders of the parties competing against the Awami League in the 1970 elections later joined the liberation war. However, most of the anti-Awami League forces were in opposition to Bangladesh. These forces organized themselves in the armed volunteer organizations of the Pakistani army, Razakar, Albadar, Alshams, Peace Committee etc. A handful of leaders who won the 1970 elections were also known to have sided with the Pakistanis. Those who played an active role in Pakistan's army and Pakistan's side at that time have helped to attach hateful words like 'genocide', 'crime against humanity' and 'war crime' in the history of this country! These religious political parties, Jamaat-e-Islami, Nezam-e-Islam and groups like the Muslim League naturally follow the religious colonial state of Pakistan. They lost their right to do politics in independent Bangladesh (because they opposed the independence of the motherland).
After killing of Bangabandhu and his family members on August 15, 1975, the murderer Khondkar Mushtaq issued an 'Indemnity Ordinance' to stop the trial of Bangabandhu's murder and jail murder forever in the name of democracy! General Ziaur Rahman turned the infamous Indemnity Ordinance into a law in the name of democracy (?!) and 'to save democracy(?!)' in the hope of getting a taste of ‘political power’ while serving in the military! The religious political parties and the criminals of war who were banned during Bangabandhu’s time were allowed to do politics after the assassination of Bangabandhu. All of these were done in the name of ‘democracy’! Bangabandhu's killers were given state patronage in the name of 'democracy'! What kind of 'democracy' and 'rule of law' was followed to protect those murderers who killed the father of the nation Bangabandhu ? Why these assassins of Bangabandu were appointed in the embassy of Bangladesh abroad? The army officer who forced President Justice Abu Sadat Mohammad Sayem to sign on resignation letter at gunpoint, did he protect democracy? Although military ruler Ziaur Rahman did these things in the name of 'democracy', they cannot be termed as 'democracy' by any standards. In fact these were the inevitable elements of the Pakistaniization process. Thus, it is seen that the so-called 'democracy' that was part of the Pakistaniization process to give indemnity for the 1975 murder trial is in direct contrast to the 'democracy' achieved through the elections held in 1970. Similarly, the 'democracy' achieved through the elections held in 1970 is opposed to the 'democracy' which opposed the liberation war of 1971, gave rights to the perpetrators of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Besides, any careful reader of the political history of this country can find similarities between Ayub Khan's martial law guided 'democracy' in 1960s with murderers' indemnity' in 1975!
Another turning point was the elections of 2008. After two years of a military-backed caretaker government, the December 2008 elections were hailed by the international community as fair, impartial and free. The freest and fairest elections were held in 2008 after the second democratic transition in 1990 (the first took place in 1972) with the fall of the country's second military ruler General Ershad (first military ruler General Ziaur Rahman) in the face of agitation. These successful elections brought Bangladesh back from the brink of a potentially violent political crisis. According to the UK's Agency for International Development (DFID), the 2008 election seemed to show 'some clear signs of moving towards the improved governance that citizens want'.
The UK's DFID report on the 2008 elections in Bangladesh pointed out very clearly and emphatically the failure to build 'democratic institutions' under military rule from 1947 to 1971 and 1975 to 1991.
BNP once played the role of one of the carriers of Pakistaniization. This party used to say that 'Awami League will take over India till it comes to power'. However, on the pretext of general strike Khaleda Zia did not meet His Excellency the President of India. Now, they are trying to get favor of India ! Seeing this, if Emperor Alexander was alive, he might have said to his commander again, 'This country is truly strange, Seleucus!' It is the opinion of the observers that the leaders of BNP go door to door to the leaders and representatives of the world's influential countries to make arrangements to come to power, not in the interest of democracy but for the sake of warm of power to enjoy and implement the values and beliefs of Pakistanization.
The 21st century is called the Asian century. Needless to say, Bangladesh, the 94th smallest country in the world and eighth largest country in the world by populationhas been making a significant contribution to the implementation of the phrase 'Asian Century'. Especially, when the South Asian democratic Sri Lanka and the undemocratic communal state of Pakistan are considered bankrupt and when the Covid-19 global pandemic and natural disasters have hit Bangladesh like other South Asian countries, the remarkable development of Bangladesh is being appreciated in different parts of the world. Pakistanisation needs to be effectively opposed and defeated to make Bangladesh a democratically developed state by 2041.
And for all these, Sheikh Hasina's leadership is essential. There is no alternative to the leadership of Deshratna Sheikh Hasina for the development of Bangladesh.
Dr. Arun Kumar Goswami, Director, Centre for South Asian Studies (CSAS), Dhaka; former Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences and former Chairman, Department of Political Science: Jagannath University
