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.
It is almost three years since Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin declared a friendship with “no limits” — weeks before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Since then, they have retreated from such rhetorical enthusiasm. The “no limits” language was quickly dumped, probably at Beijing’s behest. When Putin visited China in May last year, he said that he and his counterpart were “as close as brothers.” Xi more coolly called the Russian president “a good friend and a good neighbor.” China has conspicuously not reciprocated Putin’s description of it as an ally. Yet the partnership
The ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu (孫子) said “know yourself and know your enemy and you will win a hundred battles.” Applied in our times, Taiwanese should know themselves and know the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) so that Taiwan will win a hundred battles and hopefully, deter the CCP. Taiwanese receive information daily about the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) threat from the Ministry of National Defense and news sources. One area that needs better understanding is which forces would the People’s Republic of China (PRC) use to impose martial law and what would be the consequences for living under PRC
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) said that he expects this year to be a year of “peace.” However, this is ironic given the actions of some KMT legislators and politicians. To push forward several amendments, they went against the principles of legislation such as substantive deliberation, and even tried to remove obstacles with violence during the third readings of the bills. Chu says that the KMT represents the public interest, accusing President William Lai (賴清德) and the Democratic Progressive Party of fighting against the opposition. After pushing through the amendments, the KMT caucus demanded that Legislative Speaker
Although former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo — known for being the most pro-Taiwan official to hold the post — is not in the second administration of US president-elect Donald Trump, he has maintained close ties with the former president and involved himself in think tank activities, giving him firsthand knowledge of the US’ national strategy. On Monday, Pompeo visited Taiwan for the fourth time, attending a Formosa Republican Association’s forum titled “Towards Permanent World Peace: The Shared Mission of the US and Taiwan.” At the event, he reaffirmed his belief in Taiwan’s democracy, liberty, human rights and independence, highlighting a
RSS