It might look like the replacement of long-serving former Bangladeshi prime minister Sheikh Hasina by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus is a happy ending for a country that seemed to be inexorably sliding toward authoritarianism. After all, Hasina’s rule had become so paranoid that she even burned political capital on persecuting Yunus, widely feted for his role in rural development in Bangladesh and beyond.
However, although Hasina’s exit was overdue, what comes after might wind up being worse.
People should be wary of seeing this as a simple victory for widespread, weeks-long popular protests, sparked by students in Dhaka. As in Egypt late in the Arab Spring, when pro-democracy protests against an elected president actually tipped the country into military rule, the prime mover was an army desperate to protect its privileges. Cairo feels less free and prosperous now than it did a decade ago. Would Dhaka fare any better? Hasina was pushed off-stage relatively swiftly once the military switched sides: After 15 years in power, she was reportedly given 45 minutes to get out of town.
Yunus, while popular, has no political base from which he could challenge the uniforms. The only organized opposition in Bangladesh — again, shades of Egypt here — is on the more Islamist side of the spectrum. With Hasina gone and her party and movement discredited, it seems clear that these are the forces that would make a play for power. The leaders of the student protests understandably reject this possibility.
However, as in Cairo in 2013 or Tehran in 1979, the protesters might not completely comprehend the forces they have allied with and unleashed. Hasina’s departure was celebrated by attacks on the homes, businesses and temples of the Hindu minority across the country.
When her rivals in the Bangladesh Nationalist Party last ruled in the 2000s, the country quickly became the source of a worrying amount of cross-border terrorism. After Hasina was elected in 2009, she cracked down on militancy. As a consequence, Bangladesh outperformed on growth, development and poverty reduction during her tenure. Even Pakistani politicians noted the contrast with the illiberal chaos that has crippled their economy.
Hasina could be trusted to keep Bangladesh from descending into a Pakistan-style maelstrom of fanaticism, because she viewed Islamists as personal enemies: They collaborated with Pakistani colonizers and killed her father.
Former Bangladeshi prime minister Mujibur Rahman was an omnipresent image in his daughter’s now-vanished regime. Mujib, as he is known, is widely respected for leading the Bengalis’ struggle against Punjabi-dominated Pakistan before independence in 1971. The most dangerous aspect of Hasina’s increasingly oppressive grip on power is that, alongside destroying her own legacy, it might have tarnished her father’s beyond repair.
This is not a quarrel about dead history, but about live ideology. Mujib and his movement are associated with the Bengali language and nationalism; his opponents — who staged a coup in the 1970s that killed him and most of his family except for Hasina (and her sister, Rehana, who is with her now in India) — are much closer to the political Islamism that both defines and has derailed the Pakistani project.
None of this exonerates Hasina, who wound up rigging one election too many. Her overthrow should not come as a surprise to anyone paying attention. The problem is that nobody has been paying attention. It is time for that to change.
India and the West cannot evade responsibility here. New Delhi has tied itself so closely to Hasina in the public imagination that it has ended up being seen not as a proponent of democratic values, but as a dictator’s primary prop. Meanwhile, the West did little to convince Hasina of the benefits of democratization. As long as labor rights appeared to progress, it did not care about the rest of its Bangladesh policy — which, by the end, was being set by a restive and politically influential Bangladeshi diaspora now dominated by those ideologically opposed to Hasina and her father. Mujib’s statues might have been attacked back home, but this echoes actions in the West, soon after her downfall a rowdy group of expatriates barged into Bangladesh’s New York consulate to forcibly remove his portrait from there, as well.
The world might pay for these errors. Bangladesh has appeared normal for so long that we have forgotten how dangerous it would be for it to become chaotic. The world’s third-largest Muslim-majority nation has largely avoided sectarianism. That is thanks partly to the strength of Bengali cultural nationalism.
However, it is also because it was born in opposition to Pakistan, an Islamic republic. Half a century ago, following its traumatic independence from Pakistan, it faced such starvation that The Beatles’ George Harrison decided to organize the first superstar charity concert in history. Today, the poverty rate is below 20 percent and still declining.
Hasina’s party and government took credit for both these achievements. In doing so to justify their vice-like grip on power, they might have convinced Bangladeshi that these are not achievements worth keeping. That would be a tragedy for Bangladesh. It would be dangerous for India, the West and the world.
Mihir Sharma is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A senior fellow at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi, he is author of Restart: The Last Chance for the Indian Economy. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
RSS