AFTER many years of portraying itself as the only realistic democratic option for the country, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party has found itself facing a mounting and possibly detrimental problem of credibility. Such an outcome seems quite ironic, given the high hopes placed in the BNP on its return to power. Civil society, policy analysts, and all who had been supporting the BNP from a neutral position have started questioning whether the BNP’s professed reforms and restoration of democracy had ever been more than just a tactic while in opposition.
For almost two decades now, the BNP has been advancing a political discourse of defiance. It was politically persecuted during the deposed Awami League regime, while pledging to fight to restore democracy in Bangladesh. During all this time, the party has kept promising that should it be given the chance of forming a government once more, it will work towards the consolidation of institutions, the protection of judicial independence, and establishing a rights-based regime of governance.
But the initial steps taken by the BNP after winning elections convincingly have brought about a sharp difference between what they have promised and how they run the government. In a relatively short span of time, several of the reform policies adopted during the interim period have been either revoked or drastically changed. They include reforms in the system of appointing judges, the organisational structure of the Supreme Court, the functioning of the National Human Rights Commission, and anti-corruption policies.
It is the nature and pace of these policy reversals that have troubled critics. These changes have been pushed through without giving them extensive time for deliberation and discussion within parliament or through consultations with the general public. Instead, they have opted for swift legislative changes, making many wonder whether they are foregoing their usual processes and procedures in order to pursue their goals more quickly. It is especially concerning, considering that the party’s election campaign reiterated its commitment to accountability and transparency.
The ruling party’s backtracking from its publicly announced position on improving governance of institutions of accountability has created grounds for apprehension. Transparency International Bangladesh, for example, has sounded the alarm bells, arguing that such rollbacks of these policies will be an impediment to the much expected democratic transition. The policies that were being rolled back had largely been perceived as efforts made towards increasing institutional independence and decreasing political interference into these issues, as well as making clear mandates for monitoring institutions. Through rolling them back, the BNP is likely to consolidate its power within the executive.
The development has also created tensions in the relationship between the BNP and civil society. When the party had no power, it often tended, at least in theory, to side with reform-minded groups calling for a change in the status quo. This was not necessarily smooth sailing, but there was a feeling that they shared common goals, especially in those cases when people saw the BNP as the needed counterweight to a growing concentration of power in politics. However, now it seems that this precarious relationship is falling apart, with many activists and legal specialists arguing that the party is now far removed from its former stance on reforms. Once broken, trust is hard to restore, which will leave the BNP at odds with groups essential for ensuring its legitimacy after returning to power. The underlying reason lies in the BNP’s approach to democracy.
It should be said that perhaps the worst consequence for the BNP is its image of gradually turning into an ‘anti-people’ party. Such a perception is linked to the fact that the BNP’s actions do not seem to be aimed at enhancing mechanisms of accountability. On the contrary, the ruling party tries to consolidate its own powers, which is interpreted by many as the exact opposite of what the party claimed during its time in opposition.
It would be premature at the same time to assume that this trend will continue unchanged in the future. There are many different pressures that can affect political parties, especially those that shift from being in the opposition into positions of power.
This gives the BNP some chances to reconsider its current stance and to start addressing the demands of society by returning to the negotiations regarding disputed changes.
If the situation continues to evolve in this direction, it will not be far-fetched that an unstable, uncertain political environment will await Bangladesh’s political future. In case the party continues to ignore the opinions of its supporters and makes hasty decisions, this could only contribute to increased public distrust of the institution of politics itself.
These are defining political moments. The actions taken by the BNP will go a long way toward determining whether it will be able to maintain its claims to being a leader for the people or if it will turn out to be just one more party that changes its values upon gaining power.
Ahammad Foyez is a staff writer at New Age.
