The downfall of former Bangladeshi prime minister Sheikh Hasina unfolded faster than almost anyone expected. In early July, students took to the streets in its capital Dhaka and other cities to protest the country’s job-quota system that reserved 30% of civil-service positions for veterans of the 1971 War of Independence and their descendants.
Police were ordered to quell the unrest, and given permission to shoot if needed. By 5 August, nearly 300 people had been killed, and Hasina, under serious pressure from the Bangladeshi army, had resigned and fled the country.
The controversial job-quota system, which came under fire amid increasing economic hardship, rising youth unemployment and soaring inflation, is widely viewed as the cause of the youth revolt.
But that was merely the spark that lit the fuse. The deeper and more significant problem was Hasina’s growing authoritarianism, which upended Bangladesh’s political landscape and left little room for dissent.
I sensed this shift during my visit to Bangladesh last year.
The people I spoke to, including many supporters of Hasina’s Awami League—the political party that led the country’s movement for independence from Pakistan more than half a century ago under the leadership of her father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman—were critical of her increasing authoritarianism, intolerance of dissent and intimidation of the media. They lamented, albeit sotto voce, the destruction of Bangladesh’s founding principles: democracy and secularism.
The tragedy is that it did not have to be this way. Hasina was a courageous, secular leader who steered Bangladesh away from religious fundamentalism, which can impede economic and social progress.
At the same time, Hasina oversaw the country’s remarkable growth story. In 2019, Bangladesh overtook India in per capita gross domestic product (GDP), an outcome that would have seemed impossible even five or 10 years earlier.
To be sure, it was partly caused by India’s 2016 policy of demonetization, a failed attempt to curb ‘black money’ and corruption that led to a steady deceleration in the Indian economy’s growth rate over the next five years. But Bangladesh’s robust exports and development gains also played a vital role.
The power vacuum resulting from this unexpected revolt can jeopardize Bangladesh’s stability. History has repeatedly shown that countries often take unexpected turns after a rebellion, no matter how justified.
Religious extremist groups will undoubtedly try to seize power. If that happens, it might spell the end of Bangladesh’s successful trajectory.
Still, there is cause for hope. Both the students who led the rebellion and the country’s military leaders have acted responsibly so far: instead of grabbing power for themselves, they established an interim government headed by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Muhammad Yunus.
Bangladesh’s constitution does not offer clear guidance on how long such a government can rule. Some citizens have called for swift elections, but I think that they should be delayed until at least next summer.
The Bangladeshi economy must be stabilized, and political institutions must be rebuilt before a national vote can be held.
Despite being one of the world’s economic success stories, Bangladesh has struggled in recent years.
The country’s two biggest economic challenges—namely, high youth unemployment and inflation rates—cannot be corrected in a matter of weeks.
The Bangladeshi central bank’s autonomy has clearly been eroded over the last few years and will need to be restored, and the government must make several fiscal corrections to boost employment.
On the political front, it will be important for the interim government to be—and to be perceived as—non-partisan. Some factions in the country may try to ban the Awami League and its affiliated groups. This would be a mistake.
Individual members who committed crimes should not be allowed to run for office. However, as a party, the Awami League has played a crucial role as a progressive force and as a bulwark against religious extremism. Many of its members opposed Hasina’s authoritarian turn in recent years but were too afraid of retribution to voice their concerns openly.
My last meeting with Hasina was at the World Bank on 1 May 2023, when then-President David Malpass invited her to celebrate 50 years of partnership between the Bank and Bangladesh.
As I walked to the World Bank’s main building in Washington DC, the US capital, I had to navigate a throng of Bangladeshis who had gathered outside to protest against Hasina.
During the course of that meeting, the then prime minister of Bangladesh was surrounded by a small group of staff and advisors who nodded in agreement to whatever she said.
Did they really see eye-to-eye with Hasina, or was it simply too costly to disagree? ©2024/project syndicate
