August 2023: An ominous calm before the coming storm

The BNP and 36 other opposition parties took a sudden break in August from their street agitation calling for former prime minister Sheikh Hasina to step down for a "free and fair" parliamentary election due in December or early January, which was to be held under a non-partisan caretaker government.

This caretaker system had been erased from the constitution by the Awami League-led government more than a decade prior.

Except for two march processions with black flags, the opposition BNP did not enforce any major agitation programmes throughout August.

August, being a month of national mourning, was observed by the government to commemorate the brutal assassination of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and most of his family members in 1975.

As a result, the month offered the government, the party in power, and law enforcement agencies a breathing space after the eventful preceding month.

A series of significant events such as high-profile visits by the EU pre-election mission and US Under Secretary Uzra Zeya, along with the holding of four simultaneous large and peaceful rallies by the ruling Awami League and its archrival BNP in the capital, had exhibited some positive signs in politics.

There was a calm, but no calm is ever-lasting.

There had been escalation in political violence on the streets at the end of July during a sit-in programme announced by the BNP.

Police were seen using rubber bullets, tear gas, and water cannons to disperse protesters who attempted to join the sit-in at key entry points of Dhaka city.

Alongside the police, a large number of ruling party members were also seen using hammers, sticks, bats, iron rods, and other objects to beat protesters.

The events of July had signaled an escalation in political turmoil in August.

Although August remained peaceful, it did not clear the clouds hovering over the political landscape.

People were worried and curious about what would unfold in the coming months, particularly in September and October—two crucial months ahead of the election.

The events of the next two months were expected to determine if Bangladesh would head toward a violence-free, fair election or simply witness a repeat of the last two parliamentary polls.

'Something big set to happen'

There was widespread public speculation that "something big" would happen in October.

Electoral politics dominated informal discussions almost everywhere in cities and rural bazaars, though these conversations were rarely reported by mainstream media.

Public perception was that former PM Hasina would in no way accept the opposition's demand to pave the way for the installation of a non-partisan election-time government.

In this situation, the extent of the opposition parties' street agitation and the actions of Western countries would play pivotal roles in shaping the political situation ahead of the election.

Political analysts believed the new US visa policy on Bangladesh, potential sanctions, and the upcoming report by the EU pre-election mission that visited Bangladesh in July could be game-changers in the coming months.

The imposition of sanctions by the US on 11 Bangladeshi businessmen was a subject of public discussion, though not widely reported by mainstream media in Bangladesh.

Any economic sanctions, a powerful tool used to address countries defying US foreign policy interests or the global order, would deal a severe blow to the Bangladesh economy, which was already under stress.

Public perception was that if the Hasina government could not move forward with the election amid a boycott by the opposition parties and mounting pressure from Western countries, a national government might be formed, and the election could be deferred by two years, as happened in 2007.

This perception was reinforced by the stance of the US and its allies on the next election in Bangladesh, as they continued to advocate for free and fair polls, despite the government's strong denouncement of foreign interference.

Political analysts observed that the Biden administration was trying to make Bangladesh a test case for its values-based foreign policy.

The US had been putting considerable pressure on Dhaka by announcing the visa policy and imposing sanctions on the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB).

Analysts noted this was a selective policy that did not apply to other countries, such as Pakistan or India.

Public perception was not in favour of the government and the ruling party.

As much as 70% of respondents in a recent survey believed Bangladesh's economy was heading in the wrong direction, citing high product prices as the primary reason for their viewpoint, according to a study titled The State of Bangladesh's Political Governance, Development, and Society: According to Its Citizens.

This study, jointly conducted by The Asia Foundation in Bangladesh and the Brac Institute of Governance and Development, was unveiled on 29 August.

It used a divisionally representative survey conducted between November 2022 and January 2023 across all 64 districts, with a sample size of 10,240 men and women. Similar surveys were conducted in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

The percentage of people who thought the country was heading in the right direction across all three domains of a citizen's life had significantly declined since 2019, indicating a considerable deterioration in public perceptions of the country's future.

For instance, in 2019, 28% of respondents thought the country was heading in the wrong direction from an economic perspective.

While the majority of respondents across all income groups believed Bangladesh was going in the wrong economic direction, respondents from the highest income group were the most pessimistic.

As much as 87% of respondents from the highest income group believed Bangladesh was going in the wrong direction from an economic perspective, according to the study.

Media reports indicated that both the ruling and opposition parties were redrawing their strategies, focusing on September and October.

The BNP and other opposition parties aimed to intensify anti-government agitation in September, leading to a final push in October with various programmes in the capital.

The AL, according to media reports, was preparing for the election with the possibility that the BNP might boycott the polls.

It also planned to confront opposition agitation on the streets.

Public perception was that the AL would do everything necessary to stay in power and win the next polls.

Law enforcement agencies continuously issued warnings, stating they would not allow anyone to create "unrest" in the name of agitation that could disrupt the country's "ongoing development."

In such a situation, public fear of escalating violence in September and October was rising.

An important question being discussed in the public domain was: what if the BNP boycotted the polls?

In that case, the ruling AL would likely rely on the Jatiya Party, following the same formula applied in the last two controversial elections.

In the 2014 election, Jatiya Party chief HM Ershad had announced a boycott of the election, as the BNP and other opposition parties did not participate in the polls held under the administration of former Hasina.

However, Ershad was not allowed to quit the electoral race. A faction of his party, led by his wife Rawshan Ershad, opposed his decision and refused to boycott the election. Ershad was forcibly admitted to the combined military hospital in Dhaka and was only seen at the oath-taking ceremony of Sheikh Hasina as the new prime minister at Bangabhaban after the election concluded. Ershad was made a special envoy to the prime minister and later returned home from Bangabhaban. His party was made the main opposition in parliament, and his wife was appointed leader of the opposition in the House.

Public perception was that the Jatiya Party would not be able to take any independent stance on the election defying the influence of the ruling party as some of the party leaders were always willing to maintain good ties with the AL.  

 In addition to the components of the AL-led 14 party alliance, the ruling AL was trying to develop ties with some other small political parties to keep them away from the BNP-led opposition parties.

These parties could join the election if BNP and other opposition parties agitated for a caretaker government, giving the polls the stamp of participatory legitimacy.

'Enemies of Bangladesh'

The Hasina government was in an unprecedented tough spot.

 The economic situation in the country had worsened compared to the conditions before the last two elections in 2014 and 2018. Inflationary pressure, alleged widespread corruption, and economic mismanagement were blamed for the erosion of public confidence in the administration. However, Hasina and her government blamed the Ukraine war for the economic downturn.

Neither the US nor its allies had mounted pressure on Hasina before the previous two parliamentary polls.

Therefore, her government and party developed their own narrative to counter Western pressure. They continuously criticised the opposition BNP as well.

The narrative they constructed suggested that Western countries were "conspiring against Bangladesh's development journey" to make the country subservient, and that the BNP had aligned itself with these Western efforts against Bangladesh's interests.

The foreign ministry had instructed Bangladesh's ambassadors stationed abroad to take steps to counter what they called "anti-Bangladesh propaganda" overseas.

Former prime minister Sheikh Hasina briefing media. File Photo: UNB

The former prime minister and other ministers constantly accused opposition parties and Western countries—without naming them—of "engaging in conspiracy against Bangladesh."

The government and ruling Awami League developed a narrative labelling those who advocated for free and fair elections as "enemies of Bangladesh's progress."

On 16 August, a week before Hasina flew to South Africa to attend the BRICS summit, hoping to secure Bangladesh's admission to the platform, she once again launched a blistering attack on countries advocating for violence-free elections and promoting human rights in Bangladesh.

She alleged that the secret motive of certain foreign countries was to hinder Bangladesh's progress and that they were taking an interest in the upcoming election to use the Bay of Bengal.

"They want to create an unstable situation in this country on different pleas of election, democracy, and other names so they can use the Indian Ocean and the Bay of Bengal. The purpose of some of them is to attack different countries in this region and destroy the countries," she said, without naming any country.

She added that their motive was neither the election nor democracy.

"They want to create obstacles in Bangladesh's development journey. That is the reality," she remarked.

Hasina stated that these foreign powers sought to remove her from power and install "their purchased slaves who would lick their feet."

Some global powers want a Bangladesh government loyal to them: PM Hasina

She urged the "patriotic people" of Bangladesh to be vigilant.

The sudden capture of militants by law enforcement agencies also raised questions about whether the issue of militancy was being used as part of the government's narrative that "Bangladesh will go in the wrong direction if the Awami League is voted out of power."

Hasina once again targeted Western countries for advocating a violence-free and fair election.

On 30 August, former PM Sheikh Hasina said some of the world's major powers wanted to establish a loyal government in Bangladesh because of its geographical location.

"Actually, due to the geographical location of Bangladesh, some big countries want there to be a government here [in Bangladesh]..." she said, alleging that big countries always carried a "big brotherly" attitude.

"If they become friends with anyone, then there is no need for any enemy," she remarked, without naming any country.

She drew a comparison with Ukraine, saying, "Ukraine has been their friend. What is the condition of Ukraine today? Women and children there are facing untold miseries. Their country has been demolished for this kind of friendship. That is the reality."

Hasina did not condemn Russia for invading Ukraine, but continued to blast Western countries for their support of Ukraine.

As the president of the ruling Awami League, Hasina criticised these countries for "unnecessary interference" in Bangladesh's election, stating, "There are some countries which are searching for democracy all the time."

She also directed her criticism at the BNP.

On 16 August, she said the BNP knew they would not come to power through an election by securing the people's votes, which is why they were engaged in conspiracy to thwart the next election.

"BNP, the party of killers of the Father of the Nation, which is involved in terrorism, militancy, bombing, and grenade attacks, knows that they will never come to power through elections, and they will not get the votes of the people. That is why they are engaged in conspiracy to make the election questionable and to foil the election," she said.

A cleft stick or a fork?

Bangladesh's geopolitical position provided unique opportunities.

The country essentially became a battleground for three geopolitical rivalries: India-China, US-China, and US-Russia.

It had already become difficult for Hasina's government to manage its relations with all four of these countries.

Her government made efforts to balance relations with both the US and China, but it did not work. Bangladesh's diplomacy tilted towards China and Russia, two countries that supported Hasina's government and denounced Western nations for raising concerns about Bangladesh's national election. However, this did not silence the voices of the Western countries.

Additionally, it was difficult for the Bangladesh economy to cut ties with the West, as Western countries were the primary destination for the country's exports.

In this context, BRICS seemed to offer a ray of hope for Hasina and her government, as it provided an alternative platform to strengthen Bangladesh's position and defy the warnings and pressure from Western nations regarding the upcoming parliamentary election.

Former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina reaches Johannesburg to attend the 15th BRICS Summit. Photo: BSS

She flew to Johannesburg, hoping to secure Bangladesh's admission to BRICS—a coalition of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—which was seen by many as a potential challenger to the US-led global order.

The foreign policies of China and Russia, two major BRICS partners, were clearly aimed at countering the unipolar world by garnering support from developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Bangladesh, whose foreign policy had leaned toward China in recent years, also sought to rebalance the global order, especially as the Hasina government faced mounting pressure from the US, EU, UK, and other nations to hold credible elections and improve democratic credentials by allowing more freedoms for the people.

Failure to conduct a credible election, as the US had warned through its new visa policy, could have brought economic difficulties for Bangladesh if its exports to the US and EU markets faced any restrictions.

More than two years earlier, the US had imposed sanctions on Bangladesh's elite force, the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), and seven current and former senior officials.

These sanctions, which Dhaka had tirelessly tried to overturn, remained in place and had a significant impact.

Since December 2021, the number of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances dropped significantly. This demonstrated to Western policymakers that pressure worked effectively.

The US's new visa policy for Bangladesh, announced at the end of May, stated that the US would deny visas to individuals, ranging from law enforcement officers to political leaders, believed to be responsible for undermining the democratic election process in Bangladesh.

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina with her Indian counterpart at Brics Summit at Sandton Convention Centre in Johannesburg, South Africa. Photo: Bangladesh Embassy South Africa

At the BRICS summit, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva opposed the idea of BRICS directly competing against the West-led G20 and G7.

India, as the current chair of G20, was preparing to host the summit in September and sought to strengthen the forum to address the global economic downturn.

During the BRICS summit, Hasina held important meetings with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping. However, these meetings did not lead to Bangladesh's admission to BRICS.

The failure to gain BRICS membership sparked criticism back in Bangladesh. Amid growing questions regarding Bangladesh's potential membership in BRICS, on 29 August, former PM Hasina stated in a press conference that Bangladesh had not aimed to become a BRICS member at that time.

She explained that Bangladesh's primary focus was on becoming involved with the New Development Bank, established by BRICS member states. Bangladesh secured a 1% share in the bank.

However, back in June, then foreign minister Abdul Momen had stated that Bangladesh would attain BRICS membership by 30 August 2023.

Bangladesh had formally requested to join the BRICS coalition following a meeting between Sheikh Hasina and South African President Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa in Geneva in June.

A fresh blow

The unprecedented open letter issued by more than 171 global leaders, including over 100 Nobel Laureates, to former prime minister Hasina on 28 August expressed their concern about the safety of Nobel Laureate Prof Muhammad Yunus and appeared to be a fresh blow to the Hasina government.

In a clarion call, they urged Bangladesh's former prime minister to stop the "persecution" of Yunus.

In August, 18 ex-employees of Grameen Telecom, another company Prof Yunus founded, filed a case accusing him of depriving them of their job benefits. Separately, on 22 August, he went on trial for allegedly violating labor laws. These developments came just four months before Bangladesh's next general election and amid growing calls for free and fair polls.

There had been other cases in the past. In 2011, Bangladesh's central bank forced him out of Grameen Bank on the grounds that he had served beyond the mandatory retirement age of 60. In 2013, the authorities accused Prof Yunus of evading taxes on overseas income, which supposedly included his Nobel Prize award and royalties from a book.

Prof Yunus' lawyer, Abdullah Al-Mamun, stated that these cases were baseless and influenced by the government.

In the open letter, global leaders also expressed concern over Bangladesh's human rights, democracy, and elections. "We are deeply concerned by the threats to democracy and human rights that we have observed in Bangladesh recently. We believe that it is of the utmost importance that the upcoming national election be free and fair, and that the administration of the election be acceptable to all major parties in the country. The previous two national elections lacked legitimacy."

"One of the threats to human rights that concerns us in the present context is the case of Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Prof Muhammad Yunus. We are alarmed that he has recently been targeted by what we believe to be continuous judicial harassment," the letter said, adding, "We respectfully ask that you immediately suspend the current judicial proceedings against Prof Yunus, followed by a review of the charges by a panel of impartial judges drawn from within your nation, with some role for internationally recognized legal experts. We are confident that any thorough review of the anti-corruption and labor law cases against him will result in his acquittal."

This letter was built upon an earlier appeal to Hasina by 40 global leaders in March. Prof Yunus—known internationally as the "banker to the poor"—had been subjected to a slew of lawsuits, with several more filed in recent weeks. The open letter stated that these lawsuits represented an assault on democracy.

In her post-BRICS press conference, Sheikh Hasina responded harshly, accusing the 83-year-old Nobel laureate of "begging" for an international statement. She added that she welcomed international experts to assess the ongoing legal proceedings against Prof Yunus.

While much of the Western world lauds Prof Yunus for his pioneering use of microloans, Hasina regarded the 84-year-old as a public enemy.

She had repeatedly described Prof Yunus as a "bloodsucker" of the poor and accused his Grameen Bank of charging exorbitant interest rates.

Ali Riaz, a political scientist at Illinois State University, told the BBC that Sheikh Hasina "deeply resents" Prof Yunus' iconic standing in the world, even though he had not recently expressed any political ambitions.

Some believed Sheikh Hasina feared that Prof Yunus' reputation might soar above that of her late father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, whom many Bangladeshis revere as the man who led their country to independence.

The regime's sustained attacks on Prof Yunus also represented a growing intolerance of dissent, threatening the democratic principles on which it was founded, Prof Riaz said.

"The sudden rush in filing the cases and trying to get a speedy trial indicates that fairness and justice are not the objectives, but instead making an example out of him is the goal.

"Such behaviour is demonstrated every day against the opposition activists and critics of the government," he added.

Since then, government ministers and leaders of various pro-Awami League professional bodies launched a synchronized attack on Dr. Yunus and the global leaders who stood by him. They claimed the judiciary in Bangladesh was independent and that the letter asking for the postponement of the trial was an interference in the functions of the judicial system.

The claim that the Bangladesh judicial system was independent was not entirely accurate, as the government still had significant control over the judiciary, particularly the lower courts where the cases against Prof Yunus were being tried.

The ruling Awami League also accused Dr Yunus of engaging in conspiracy with the BNP.

On 30 August, Awami League General Secretary and Road Transport and Bridges Minister Obaidul Quader said that after failing to wage a movement, the BNP had now started a new game involving Nobel laureate Dr Muhammad Yunus.

"BNP leaders failed in the movement, and now they have begun a new game over Dr Muhammad Yunus. They see the nightmare of the 1/11 changeover. This evil game will not be allowed to be played on the soil of Bangla," he said during a discussion.

Quader claimed that BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir and other BNP leaders were dreaming of the 1/11 (changeover) after stumbling in their movement.

"They want to foil the peaceful election environment in Bangladesh. We will not allow this evil game to be played," he said.

While the Awami League leaders now do not endorse the 1/11 changeover, the fact is the party had claimed credit for it at the time, as their violent street agitation and last-minute boycott of the election led to the declaration of a state of emergency and the postponement of the election.

The opposition BNP, however, stood by Dr Yunus.

On 29 August, BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir issued a statement demanding the immediate withdrawal of the cases filed against Nobel Laureate Prof Muhammad Yunus and an end to his harassment.

"Muhammad Yunus is a heroic son of the soil. People of this nation will remember him with respect for hundreds of years to come, and they will be ashamed of how such a revered man was treated by the government of this country," the statement read.

Fakhrul further said that those who sought to belittle and insult Yunus would never be able to reach his level, "even if they are reborn."

Free and fair polls sans free press?

Former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's government had repeatedly renewed its "commitment" to holding a free and fair election, scheduled for the end of the year.

However, the approval of the new cyber security law by her cabinet in August, with the same provisions as the controversial Digital Security Act (DSA), raised concerns about that commitment. The pressing question became: could a free and fair election be possible with a law in place that restricts freedom of speech and the press?

Her government decided to enact the new law by repealing the draconian Digital Security Act, which had drawn widespread outcry both domestically and internationally due to its blatant abuse, primarily by ruling party members and law enforcement agencies to stifle free speech and press freedom.

The law minister had, on several occasions, promised to amend the problematic provisions of the DSA.

Yet, in a sudden move, the government chose to scrap the DSA and push for a new law.

This strategy was reminiscent of how they responded to criticism of section 57 of the ICT Act. In 2018, the government removed that section from the ICT Act, only to split and incorporate it into several sections of the Digital Security Act, which became a major threat to freedom of speech and the press.

The controversial provisions of the DSA were set to remain in the proposed Cyber Security Act, although some offenses were made bailable, and punishments for those offenses were reduced. As a result, many referred to the proposed law as "old wine in a new bottle."

This meant that the press would still face the same threats when reporting on critical issues before and during the parliamentary election. The key concern remained: could a free and fair election be held if the media did not have the freedom to report independently?

Catch the next installment of this series on Sunday!