AFTER several weeks of deadly anti-government protests, Sheikh Hasina Wajed’s fifth stint as Bangladesh prime minister came to an unceremonious end on Monday. Following news that she had resigned — or quite possibly been ousted — and left the country, there were celebrations on Dhaka’s streets.

Since last month, there had been growing unrest in Bangladesh, with a student-led protest movement demanding an end to quotas in government jobs for descendants of ‘freedom fighters’ who had participated in the creation of Bangladesh. However, the protests went beyond job quotas.

Sheikh Hasina, during her back-to-back 15-year rule, had decimated the opposition and shut all safety valves, resulting in a volcanic eruption of public anger. Her opponents claimed her government had indulged in corruption, extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. In addition, over the past several weeks, the administration, along with supporters of Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League, had fought pitched battles with demonstrators. At least 300 people were reportedly killed. This was the build-up to her eventual departure, which was followed by the Bangladesh army chief announcing an interim set-up.

This paper has consistently opposed military intervention in political affairs. Pakistan has gone through several cycles of military rule — direct and otherwise; Bangladesh, too, is no stranger to power grabs by the generals. In both states, these interventions have only hurt the democratic process. And while it can be argued that Sheikh Hasina’s repressive actions, misgovernance and ensuing unpopularity created a golden opportunity for the army to assert itself, the generals in Bangladesh must be condemned roundly for their interference and for further damaging the democratic process. Indeed, the disastrous consequences of such meddling can last over generations.

In Sheikh Hasina’s Bangladesh, the unrelenting throttling of the opposition meant that, instead of political battles being fought in parliament or at the ballot box, the struggle to secure power played out on the streets. But again, it was not the army’s place to intervene. Power, through credible elections, should return to civilian hands as soon as possible and the army should go back to the barracks without further ado. If the troops do not make their exit soon, given the charged political environment, Bangladesh will enter a new phase of instability.

In Sheikh Hasina’s fall lie lessons for all developing states, particularly those in South Asia, which share many sociopolitical traits with Bangladesh. Political repression, mixed with economic frailty, is a recipe for public unrest. Along with crackdowns on the opposition, Bangladesh’s economic progress had slowed, with the country turning to the IMF last year. When all avenues for dissent are closed off, and authoritarian tactics are used to clamp down on political opponents, the stage is set for either violent upheaval, or the entry of unelected forces moving in to ‘save the day’.

Published in Dawn, August 6th, 2024