End of democracy in Bangladesh

Gwynne Dyer

It always looks bad when a ruling party jails the opposition leader months before the election. If Khaleda Zia, the leader of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), had boycotted this election like she did the last one, she’d probably still be a free woman.

But she didn’t and so was sentenced to jail time on various implausible corruption charges.

Her rival, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, could probably have won fairly but even with Zia in jail she took no chances and arranged a ‘‘landslide’’ in which her Awami League and its allies

won almost all the 300 seats in parliament. The BNP got seven seats – also pretty implausible.

After a decade in power, the Awami League is getting arrogant and careless. In Chittagong, the country’s second city, a BBC reporter saw pre-stuffed ballot boxes being delivered to a polling station. Hint: when pre-stuffing ballot boxes, ensure they are opaque, not see-through.

When Bangladesh broke free from Pakistan 48 years ago after a bloody war, it was seen as an economic basket case, because its only natural resource was its people – and there were too many of them. There are even more now – 167 million – but Bangladesh works. It is still poor and corrupt but its economy has been growing at an average of 6.5 per cent for the past 10 years and is now, at almost 8 per cent, second highest in the world. Unemployment is low, inflation is low and steady, and population growth is under control.

Even more impressive is Bangladesh’s literacy rate, up from 47 per cent to 73 per cent in the past 10 years. And who has been the prime minister for the past 10 years? Hasina, that’s who.

She may have locked up her rival, arrested hundreds of BNP party workers and brought charges against tens of thousands of BNP party members. She may have rigged the election but the country is doing fine. It just has this endless civil war between its two main political leaders, both now in their 70s: Hasina and Zia.

The ‘‘battling begums’’, as the Bangladeshi press calls them – ‘‘begum’’ is a title referring to a Muslim woman of high rank – did not start out as enemies.

Shortly after the country got independence in 1971, it fell under military rule for almost two decades. Hasina’s father was the prime minister murdered in the first coup. Zia’s husband was the ruling general assassinated in the second coup. The two women cooperated in removing the last military ruler in 1990 and they have been the most important politicians in the country since.

They quickly became rivals and then enemies but they alternated in power in a more or less functional democracy until 2014, when Hasina decided she preferred to hold power permanently. Contrary to previous practice, she declared her government, not a neutral and temporary caretaker government, would run the 2014 elections.

Zia protested that the election would be rigged and her party boycotted the vote. That was a mistake. She handed everything to Hasina on a plate.

This time Zia said the BNP would run in the election, so Hasina sent her to jail, and rigged the election ruthlessly.

So what? The country is doing well by all the usual indicators, isn’t it? Yes, it is but the street violence grows with every election, and BNP supporters are afraid to let their views be known.

Bangladesh is now effectively a one-party state in which about half the population hates and fears the ruling party.

Sooner or later the Awami League will stumble and the hate will be expressed in actions. It would have been better to stick with democracy, even if that meant winning only part of the time.

The Awami League is getting arrogant and careless.