by .jpeg)
The journey towards establishing a robust democracy in Bangladesh is at a critical juncture. Following the fall of the Hasina regime on August 5, 2024, discussions are underway to set a date for organizing elections in a new Bangladesh. Political parties are grappling with differences of opinion regarding the election date, methods, constitutional reforms, restructuring of state institutions, and the swift trial of the ousted fascist regime. Despite these challenges, there is hope that political parties will overcome their disputes and move towards a free and fair election.
Globally, three primary forms of democracy are observed: presidential, parliamentary, and semi-presidential. The United States exemplifies the presidential system, Great Britain represents the parliamentary model, and France is a model for the semi-presidential system. In France, citizens enjoy significant individual freedoms, yet the country has struggled to establish a liberal democratic system akin to Britain’s. France’s democratic journey has been tumultuous, marked by frequent cabinet collapses. For instance, during the Third Republic (1870–1940), France saw 160 cabinet changes over 70 years, with bureaucracy often driving governance. Despite these challenges, France maintained continuity through patriotic bureaucrats, though such reliance can weaken a state internally. Interestingly, France’s empire was the second largest after Britain’s.
The Fourth Republic of France (1946–1958) lasted 12 years, witnessing 20 cabinet collapses. This highlights that elections alone do not guarantee democracy. While elections are essential, they do not automatically ensure a robust democratic system. In Bangladesh, the tendency to equate voting with democracy lacks a solid foundation. General Charles de Gaulle, considered the architect of modern France, came to power through a military coup in May 1958 and introduced a semi-presidential system. This system, balancing a president and a prime minister, grants significant power to the president, ensuring cabinet stability. Similarly, in 1958, General Ayub Khan in Pakistan, influenced by France, adopted a semi-presidential system. In Bangladesh, President Ziaur Rahman and later General Hussain Muhammad Ershad followed this model to ensure governmental stability and efficiency.
After Ershad’s fall, the 1991 parliamentary election led to a constitutional amendment transitioning Bangladesh to a parliamentary system, inspired by the British model, formalized through a referendum. However, this system failed to consolidate democracy. The caretaker government system, introduced in 1996 to ensure fair elections, was abolished in 2011 by the Awami League government under Sheikh Hasina, casting a shadow over Bangladesh’s democratic landscape. Hasina, who once championed the caretaker system, later orchestrated three consecutive manipulated elections, consolidating power and becoming an authoritarian ruler. The fall of her regime in 2024 has reignited hopes for restoring democracy.
Excessive political parties can lead to unstable governments, as seen in “hung parliaments.” A two-party system, as in the U.S., can foster stability. The U.S. introduced the 22nd Amendment in 1951, limiting presidents to two terms to prevent excessive consolidation of power. Franklin D. Roosevelt, the only U.S. president elected four times, prompted this reform. Similarly, Bangladesh could benefit from a law limiting prime ministers to two terms to prevent authoritarianism. The lack of internal democracy within political parties also hinders national democratic progress.
Bangladesh’s democratic traditions draw from British influence, notably through the 2016 Brexit referendum, where Prime Minister David Cameron resigned after the public voted against his stance, demonstrating internal party democracy. In contrast, Bangladesh’s political parties struggle with internal democratic practices, impacting the broader political landscape.
Historically, Bangladesh’s voting politics emerged during British rule, with local governance introducing elections. Prominent figures like Chittaranjan Das, Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, and Subhas Chandra Bose participated in local elections, shaping political history. However, local and national governance differ significantly. During British rule, Bangladesh lacked sovereignty, controlled by the British Parliament. Today, as a sovereign nation, Bangladesh can shape its governance policies.
The foundation of democracy lies in public opinion, political parties, impartial elections, and fulfilling public aspirations. Persistent public dissatisfaction post-elections undermines democracy. Many hoped Bangladesh would evolve into a two-party system like Britain, with BNP and Awami League as key players, but this vision has not materialized. The collapse of democracy under Hasina’s regime underscores its fragility in crises. As political parties now demand democratic restoration, the question remains: what form of democracy will Bangladesh adopt? The country’s political history, marked by bloodshed and interruptions, necessitates a critical review of the past 54 years to build a resilient democratic future. The focus must shift from power-centric politics to nation-building, fostering a strong, democratic Bangladesh.
.webp)
