The New York Times just published Phillip Bowring’s latest op-ed on politics in South Asia and Southeast Asia.
The piece is fine; it takes up general points on the strong dynastic trend in political leadership in the region. As he writes, “Bangladesh has Sheikh Hasina, daughter of the murdered first prime minister, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.” He might have done well to mention that he is also the daughter of the first powerful President of Bangladesh, the self-same Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, and therein lies the kernel of politics that stands behind decades of political stasis in Bangladesh: Bangladesh is not a country that has experienced discrete transitions from democracy to dictatorship or vice-versa. It is, rather a country that has both witnessed and experienced endogenous transitions. One could argue that Sheikh Mujib, transitioned to dictatorship when he abolished multi-party parliamentary democracy. The fact that he was assassinated before he’d established a long record of authoritarian rules saves his tenure from being critical examined as, an overt dictatorship.
Bowring, then off-handedly mentions, that “in Bangladesh, years of fierce rivalry between Sheikh Hasina, daughter of one murdered president and widow of another, have been a debilitating factor in democratic politics. But their parties needed their family names to provide cohesion and without them there could have been much more overt military intervention.”
It is more likely the case that individual members of the respective parties have sided with the two leaders as the individuals who are most likely capable of delivering the private goods that are the bread, butter and pudding of Bangladeshi politics. Bowring’s final assertion that it is possible that the Begums forestalled “more overt military intervention” will be the subject of a forthcoming piece.
For now, I’ll only mention that military and democratic rule in Bangladesh are not strictly dichotomous choices that have befallen politicians and military leaders in Bangladesh. In fact, there’s more military and political interpenetration in the discursive transitions between the two forms of rule in Bangladesh.
Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that Bowring’s penultimate comment on dynastic politics has the benefit of being correct, for dynastic politics in Bangladesh has devastated any possibility of selecting independent and disinterested candidates for office. Bowring writes:
“Dynasties are a poor commentary on the depth of democracy in their countries. Without parties with a coherent organization and a set of ideas, politics becomes about personalities alone and name recognition more important than competence. Parties run by the elite offspring of past heroes easily degenerate into self-serving patronage systems.”
And there you have it folks: Politics in Bangladesh
