The dilemma of forming a third party in BD: In response to Mubin S Khan’s Why it’s so difficult to build a third party

Bangladesh's political landscape is often characterised by its deep-rooted patronage networks, dynastic dominance, and the enduring rivalry between the Awami League (AL) and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).

These two political umbrellas have shaped the nation's governance for decades, not much through ideological appeal or exemplary leadership, as much through a system of rewards and punishments that ties personal survival and advancement to political allegiance. This system, perfected over time, has created a complex web of dependencies, where loyalty to a party is less about belief in its vision and more about securing one's livelihood, property, or even basic services.

Against this backdrop, Why It's So Difficult to Build a Third Party, an insightful piece by Mubin S. Khan, critically examines the mechanisms that sustain the AL-BNP duopoly and explores why alternative political forces have consistently failed to break their stranglehold. From the elite-driven efforts of reformist leaders to the army-backed attempts to dismantle the dynastic structures, the analysis highlights the systemic challenges that have thwarted meaningful change. It also delves into the socio-political context, explaining how the absence of strong state institutions and the population's reliance on political patronage have perpetuated the dominance of a few families.

Abdur Rashid's story, as recounted during an hour-long interview at a Nilkhet restaurant, is a poignant and eye-opening narrative that lays bare the intricate and often brutal dynamics of grassroots politics in Bangladesh. Rashid, a pseudonym for a man in his mid-40s, has lived deeply entangled in the political rivalries that define the country's local power structures. His story is not just one of personal tragedy but also a microcosm of the broader political landscape, where loyalty, survival, and power intersect in a shocking and deeply human way.

Rashid's family, staunch supporters of the BNP and its local leader Md Keramat Ali in Patuakhali, found themselves on the losing side of a bitter power struggle with another BNP leader, Air Vice Marshal (retd) Altaf Hossain. The consequences were devastating: Rashid's father was brutally murdered in their front yard, and Rashid and his brothers suffered severe injuries, forcing them into a life of hiding and displacement. The interview vividly captures the toll this political rivalry took on Rashid's family, painting a grim picture of how local politics can destroy lives.

The most striking moment in the interview comes at the end when Rashid reveals that he now works for Altaf Hossain, the very man whose rise to power had caused so much suffering for his family. His resigned explanation, "You have to do what you have to, to survive," is a gut-wrenching reminder of the harsh realities faced by those at the grassroots level. This revelation forces the reader to confront the moral ambiguities and compromises that define survival in such a volatile environment.

Rashid's story was part of a larger journalistic project exploring the internal power structures of political parties in Bangladesh, conducted in 2012, a time when the country's political landscape was still relatively pluralistic compared to the one-party dominance that would emerge after the 2014 elections. Through interviews with activists from various parties, including the BNP, Awami League, and Jamaat-e-Islami, the project reveals a common thread: many grassroots activists, like Rashid, have no deep ideological loyalty to their parties. Instead, their political affiliations are often born out of necessity, shaped by local disputes, family rivalries, and the need for protection or survival.

Ideological Divide Exists

Ideological inclination exists in society, and people would divide on this line as we have seen in 2013 in the Shapla vs. Shahbgh dichotomy, which is still there. The formation of a political party and the subsequent creation of its supporters base are determined by this division. However, the very nature of the polity gives birth to a situation where ideology and necessity get inextricably intertwined. It's not an easy nut to crack to untangle the knot. However, the lines of ideological divisions would often dwindle in the face of the dire need for survival or vested interest, like attacking the minority and grabbing someone else's property. Rashid's story, for instance, underscores how property disputes and local rivalries can drag individuals and families into the orbit of political parties, transforming personal conflicts into political battles.

Whatever the ideological inclination, the way rank and file connect with the party remains fundamentally the same in almost every case, though the Islamic parties are more organised. 

Why the alternatives fail

The narrative is particularly compelling in its exploration of why alternative political forces have struggled to gain ground. From the elite-driven efforts of figures like Barrister Kamal Hossain and Dasruddoza Chowdhury to the "minus two" formula of 2007-08, the piece highlights the repeated failures to break the AL-BNP duopoly.

Even newer parties like Gono Forum, Bikalpa Dhara, and Gono Odhikar Porishod, which emerged from a desire for more educated and principled leadership, have failed to dismantle the entrenched system. The author astutely observes that these efforts often lack the grassroots machinery and patronage networks that sustain the AL and BNP, leaving them unable to compete in a system where survival often depends on access to resources and protection. So there is hardly any scope for doubt as to why the educated class's calls for reform have mostly gone unheeded.

The patronage system and its pervasiveness 

Patronage systems thrive on the distribution of resources in exchange for political support. The informal economy, often operating outside of formal regulations and taxation, provides a pool of resources that can be used for this purpose. Politicians can use their influence to grant access to informal markets, overlook regulatory violations, or provide other forms of support to informal businesses in exchange for loyalty. 

With 85 percent of our employment in the informal sector, one can fathom the pervasiveness of the patronage system. For example, the slums of the city, inhabited by hundreds and thousands of working-class people, directly thrive on the patronage system. As the slums are mostly illegal, the electricity, gas, water, sanitation, and access to all basic amenities of the dwellers depend on the patronage of the local political bigwigs, who also facilitate their living. So no matter how many democratic slogans the left and other forces raise, there will be hardly any effect on the working class. Even the distribution of social security measures in rural areas is largely determined by political patronage, plus a certain amount of bribes is a common factor, which often overlaps with each other. 

The persistence of the AL-BNP dichotomy, Mubin Khan suggests, is partly due to the lack of strong state institutions in Bangladesh. Drawing on a University of Hong Kong study, Mubin Khan posits that political dynasties in developing nations like Bangladesh provide a semblance of stability in the absence of robust institutional frameworks. This insight helps explain why figures like Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia remain central to their parties, serving as almost cult figures who simplify complex political realities for a population grappling with daily struggles.

The piece then turns to the proposed new political party led by the July Uprising student activists, posing critical questions about its viability. The author rightly points out that while the student leaders have built a public profile, they have yet to cultivate the kind of personality cult that often drives political movements in South Asia. Whether a new generation of leaders, defined by their ideals rather than their lineage, can resonate with a population accustomed to looking for saviours remains an open question.

But the ultimate question remains unclear: whether they will be able to make a dent in the edifice built by the two rival parties over the last 54 years. Given their track record so far, there is hardly any reason to believe that they will build anything distinct from the patronage-based party. It's evident from the way they are trying to rope in the former local councillors, whom they dub as not complicit in the killing during the July uprising. But they will be faced with severe resistance from the old establishment for sure, which is also getting increasingly evident. 

History of Patronage 

The patronage system was introduced in this land by the Pakistani dictator Ayub Khan. Ayub Khan introduced the Basic Democracies system in 1959 as a form of controlled local government. It was a tiered system of local councils, with elected "Basic Democrats" forming an electoral college. This system was presented as a way to bring democracy to the grassroots level, but it was heavily controlled by the central government. The Basic Democracies system became a vehicle for patronage as the government used its influence to reward loyalists and build support, creating a network of patronage that extended throughout the country. This system allowed the government to control political activity and suppress dissent, and the legacy goes on.

The bedrock of a just society is contingent upon dismantling the pervasive patronage system. The state, as the guarantor of citizen rights, must lead this effort. We must move decisively beyond the notion of subjects and embrace the reality of sovereign citizens, a reality that has to be reflected in the state's service provision. This necessitates the delivery of core rights: comprehensive universal education through grade 12, accessible and high-quality healthcare, a secure and efficient social safety net, and the creation of decent employment. Most importantly, dismantling the oligarchy is paramount. 

Only by establishing these foundations can we create an environment where diverse political parties can genuinely compete, as voting can be free and fair in such a context, just like the democratic dynamism of nations like Germany. Without such fundamental reforms, any attempt to challenge the status quo will be met with forceful opposition, and the small parties would reach a point of extinction.

Protik Bardhan is a senior sub-editor at the Daily Prothom Alo. 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.