Hasina’s departure in disgrace

The fall Bangladeshi leader has a lesson for all: dictators end badly

Alok Tiwari

Bangladesh’s prime minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed was not a dictator. At least, not in the classic meaning of the term. She was, technically speaking, an elected leader. Yet, she had to pick up her bags and flee the country she ran for 15 years within hours as her regime unravelled in the manner that many dictators in many countries have done previously. She was lucky to get out alive. Much worse fate has fallen upon others in her own country including her father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founder of the country. Now her son, already living abroad, has declared that she has no intention to return to Bangladesh. As she quit, she has left not only her legacy in the mud but also her country in turmoil.

I said Sheikh Hasina wasn’t a dictator, but she was definitely dictatorial. Her years in power progressively saw her getting more intolerant of dissent till it got to the point that she brazenly stole the last elections. She removed the Constitutional provision of having a caretaker government oversee the election and presided over the elections herself. She effectively decimated the main opposition party forcing it to boycott the elections. This was preceded by slapping of police cases against anyone that spoke out. This included the internationally celebrated Nobel laureate Mohammed Yunus, the father of microfinancing.

So her party “winning” the January elections was pretty much a sham. It was the only serious contender in the race. Things were so obviously bad that the many “independents” who won actually contested on ruling party’s symbol. The ruse was just to provide a figment of legitimacy to the elections. With a puppet Election Commission in charge of the polling process, she was declared a winner, but international community duly called out the fraud. Not surprisingly, she dismissed these as part of a conspiracy to destabilise the country.

Discontent against her regime was brewing for many years. The latest protest breaking out over weird quota system that Bangladesh has just provided an excuse. It soon snowballed into a general anti-government protest. Hasina government tried to muzzle the protest at first, killing over 100 protesters, mostly young students. When protests renewed after a brief respite and another 100 or so protesters were killed, her game was effectively up. The thing with brutality and suppression is that after a point, they cease to be effective. When protesters, defying all dangers, reached the doorstep of her official home, her only choices were to flee or be lynched by the mob. Just like from Sri Lanka not very long ago, we saw videos of ordinary citizens roaming the well-done interiors of her home, eating from the laid-out buffet, taking in the beauty of the gardens.

We can’t get into her mind but if she is reflecting on her four terms, is she wondering if she could have done things differently? Because she had done many things right as well. She had dealt with radical Islamist elements in the country with an iron hand. Under her, Bangladesh was something of an economic miracle. Her party, Awami League, has historically had close ties with India. She continued that legacy and secured many agreements with India that benefited Bangladesh. In fact, her pro-India tilt was so pronounced that it became a political liability. Hence, what happened is more than just a tragedy for her. The radical Islamists have sought to capitalize on popular anger against her and capture the leadership of protests. Her fall has already led to mob attacks on homes of Hindus in Bangladesh. Unless the army, which is in charge for now, quickly puts a lid on it, there is every chance of a radical Muslim regime capturing power. If that happens, it will plunge the country into a spiral very well seen in Pakistan and undo decades of progress.

It need not have gone this way. Like many leaders who want to achieve get a lot done in a short time, the mess of democracy looks like a hindrance. The freedoms that accompany it keep the leaders grounded. Protests by ordinary citizens serve as a safety valve, their reflection in a free media informs the leaders about what people are thinking. Their intensity and spread can help them gauge the popular mood. Of course, they also give opportunity to opponents to thwart the government design and even replace it in elections. But here is the thing, even if thrown out of power, in a democracy, a leader and a party can always hope to bounce back after learning the right lessons, as Indira Gandhi did in 1980, rather than face a firing squad or spend a life in exile. Winning an election is always a better idea than stealing one.

In this respect, Sheikh Hasina’s departure ought to be lesson for all demagogues and populists who dream of continuing their run in office through devious means. This is a lesson that history has repeatedly sought to give and one that many leaders have repeatedly ignored. It is not enough to just do economically well. At some point of time, people will seek freedoms as well. Building highways and ports and airports is necessary and can bring a measure of prosperity. But, as the saying goes, man does not live by bread alone. If they see their freedoms being traded for economic opportunities, a time will come when they say no. It is too bad that Sheikh Hasina could not remember the tragedy that befell her own family when her once immensely popular father fell from grace and was assassinated with almost entire family.

We do not know yet which way the ongoing Bangladeshi Spring will play out. It can only be hoped that the turmoil throws up something better. The country’s army has a better history than Pakistan’s, so a return to democratic government can be hoped for. It will be an immense tragedy the country goes under an extended army rule or, worse, an Islamist regime takes over.

This column appeared on Aug 7, 2024