To ban or not to ban: What positions have been taken on AL
Flip-flopping on stance is also seen in a number of parties, while the interim government also doesn’t appear too keen on instituting such a ban
Ever since the fall of the AL government, a number of people have called for a ban on the Awami League as a political party.
In recent months, the call has only grown louder, especially through the "July Revival" programme.
Fanning the flames came Hasnat Abdullah's post, where he claimed a "team from cantonment" had tried to convince them to allow a "Refined AL" to contest the elections.
However, citing a statement by the Army Headquarters Netra News reported that Army Chief General Waker-uz-Zaman had attended the meeting with Hasnat and others but he did not try to convince them to allow the rehabilitation of AL, but simply offered his personal opinion.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
Amid the controversy, Sarjis Alam, an NCP leader like Hasnat, offered clarification – he said the discussion on a "Refined AL" was an opinion expressed by Army chief General Waker-uz-Zaman and not a proposal.
While it seems student leaders, who are now the faces of the National Citizen Party (NCP) and Jatiya Nagorik Committee, are adamant about the ban, other political parties seem to differ.
Flip-flopping on stance is also seen in a number of parties, while the interim government also doesn't appear too keen on instituting such a ban.
How BNP views it
The BNP has been a rollercoaster ride of emotions when it comes to a ban on the AL.
Speaking to PTI on 3 September, BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir said barring the Awami League from participating in the upcoming national election or labelling it as a fascist political party would undermine democratic practices.
On 1 October, BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir again reiterated the same.
But speaking at a meeting on 7 October, Adviser to BNP chairperson Zainul Abedin Farroque said the AL had to be banned as allowing such "terrorist groups" to exist would only lead the country to regression.
Just two months later – amid debate on BNP's stance — Farroque's take was strengthened when party senior joint secretary general Ruhul Kabir Rizvi said the BNP was not a barrier to banning the AL.
"Some in the interim government are propagating through their remarks and statements that BNP is an obstacle to banning the Awami League, which is not correct," he told a press conference at BNP's Nayapaltan central office.
Fakhrul, meanwhile, had remained adamant that the BNP was not in favour of banning any political party.
"Who are we to ban political parties? It is the people who will decide," he said.
Then on 25 October, Joint Secretary General and Narsingdi district unit BNP convener Khairul Kabir Khokon said they do not believe in the politics of banning political parties.
"There is a demand to ban the Awami League; but we don't want any banning. We don't believe in the politics of banning. We don't want to score a goal in an empty field," said Khairul Kabir Khokon.
In a few months, however, BNP's stance would become clearer.
Speaking at an event last month, BNP senior leader Salahuddin Ahmed said the AL could no longer engage in politics under its current name.
BNP Joint Secretary General Shahid Uddin Chowdhury Annie in March said any plan to ban the AL must go through a proper process.
"We cannot just declare the Awami League banned overnight. The same was said about Jamaat-e-Islami, but was it effectively banned?" he said.
In the same month, Rizvi, also asked why the AL shouldn't be allowed to do politics under the leadership of those who have a clean image.
"If individuals who come to lead the Awami League have no involvement in crimes, the killing of students, looting, or laundering public money, then why can't such an Awami League engage in politics?" he said.
Just two days ago, Fakhrul was again asked about his take on a possible ban on BNP, but this time, he chose silence.
"I will not comment on this matter right now. Please do not divert the topic. Thank you," he said.
Once-banned Jamaat may not favour AL ban?
Just four days before Hasina was deposed, one of her last moves was to ban Jamaat-e-Islami on 1 August.
The ban was lifted once the interim government came to power.
But it seems the party does not harbour much grudge.
Party Secretary General Mia Golam Parwar, at a programme in November, said the party was not in favour of banning any political organisation, including its rivals.
Three months later, Gazipur Metropolitan Jamaat-e-Islami's Nayeb-e-Ameer Md Hossain Ali, however, demanded a ban on the political activities of AL in Bangladesh.
He argued that the former ruling party should be prohibited in the same manner as the ban on Chhatra League, citing allegations of terrorism. He also issued a 24-hour ultimatum for this action.
A few days ago, Jamaat-e-Islami Amir Dr Shafiqur Rahman said the people would not accept any attempt to rehabilitate the AL.
In a Facebook post, he said the people wanted to see justice – the genocide trial on a priority basis – and had no room for thinking beyond it.
Student leaders adamant on ban
Hasnat's recent post, which sent shockwaves through Bangladesh's political scene, only served to reiterate what has already been said – the AL needs to be banned.
A number of students under different banners, including July Revival, have been advocating for the ban.
The demand could be heard back in August as well.
In October, then in his position as chief coordinator of the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement, Hasnat had said the AL could be potentially tried and subsequently banned under the Anti-Terrorism Act.
The same month, three leaders of the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement filed a writ petition with the High Court, seeking rules to ban all political activities of the Awami League and 10 other parties, and debar them from all future elections.
Then in February, Nahid Islam, who was serving as an adviser to the interim government, also emphasised that there was no room for politics under the AL name and ideology.
Asif Mahmud Sajib, the local government adviser, had even stronger words.
He said the party should be eradicated, not just banned. He followed it up with an explanation that this was his personal stance.
"The idea of AL's political rehabilitation is unthinkable. I may not have explained it properly, and some media outlets have presented my statements differently. The issue of allowing the AL to participate in elections was not raised here. This question is irrelevant before any trial," added the adviser.
This month, the same viewpoint has been played on repeat this month.
Several student organisations, including Students Against Discrimination (SAD) and Gono Odhikar Parishad, have all called for a permanent ban on Awami League (AL).
Condemning the lack of progress in prosecuting AL for crimes committed during the student-citizen uprising, National Citizens' Party (NCP) Convener Nahid Islam then demanded a ban on the party's political legitimacy and immediate justice for the "July genocide" on 21 March.
The same day, NCP Chief Organiser (North) Sarjis Alam announced the beginning of a new chapter in their fight for the ban of Awami League.
In a post on his verified Facebook page this afternoon, Sarjis said, "We are ready for the second chapter of the fight. This fight will continue until the genocidal Awami League is banned."
Interim govt on the issue
The interim government, led by Muhammad Yunus, has recently come under fire for failing to proceed with the ICT trial against the AL.
Yunus took centre stage in the issue of banning the AL when in an interview with The Hindu, he said he had no objections to the party contesting in the polls.
"We didn't want to take decisions about the political party, and the BNP has done that, saying that all political parties must contest elections. So they already made the verdict, and we cannot defy the opinion of a major party of the country," he said.
It's a line he repeated whenever queried on the matter.
Just as recently as three days ago, Yunus again told a delegation from the International Crisis Group that there were no plans to ban the AL, but "individuals within its leadership accused of crimes, including murder and crimes against humanity, will be tried in Bangladeshi courts."
Law adviser to the interim government Asif Nazrul also touched upon the issue at the end of August last year.
He also said banning the AL as a political party would not be wise.
His comments came soon after Attorney General Md Asaduzzaman implored the High Court to reject the writ petition that sought its order on the government to ban Bangladesh Awami League as a political party and cancel its registration.
"The current interim government believes in the freedom of association that's enshrined in the constitution of Bangladesh and does not intend to ban any political parties. People involved in the previous authoritarian regime who are guilty of wrongdoings can be tried in court, but it's not right to ban any political party based on the actions of its members," he said.
In September, the High Court summarily rejected the writ petition.
But something changed in October.
Following talks with 10 parties, Mahfuj Alam, special assistant to the chief adviser, said, "Those who had taken part in the last three elections and come to parliament illegally deceived the people, and the interim government will of course put obstacles to their political participation."
How the barriers would come into effect wasn't elaborated.
For now, it is believed that the trials against AL members would suffice, resulting in a ban for those individuals found guilty.
UN weighs in
The UN also suggested not banning any political party as this could undermine a return to genuine multiparty democracy and "effectively disenfranchise a large part of the Bangladeshi electorate."
In a report published in February, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) further asked to ensure a safe and enabling environment for free and genuine elections, including by respecting fundamental freedoms.
"Entrench the reintroduction of appropriate special measures, especially for the period prior to elections, to ensure a level playing field for all participating political parties and candidates. Strengthen oversight institutions that balance the influence of political parties on governance," it recommended.
