The government of Bangladesh has placed severe penalties against burning the national flag. The cabinet approved the move and the parliament will debate the prospect of 2 year prison terms and a 10,000 Taka fine levied against all such acts.
This smacks of nationalism run amok. It is nearly incontestable that any instance in which a flag is burned is tantamount to political speech, which is protected in most advanced democracies. Indeed, freedom of speech is protected under Article 39 of the Bangladeshi Constitution.
But in the next heart beat, the Constitution of Bangladesh lays out the limits of that freedom which include restrictions when the speech acts turn:
(a) Against the interest of security of the State
(b) Against the friendly relation with foreign state
(c) Violation of public order
(d) Violation of decency or morality
(e) Anything related to contempt of court
(f) Defamation or incitement to any offense
This implies that any serious investigation of freedom of speech in Bangladesh has to weigh the import of the restrictions on that freedom against the value of freedom, itself, tout court
Consider a similar debate in the United States, where burning a flag, a revered symbol, has been held up as a political speech act by the Supreme Court of the United States and is protected as such by the First Amendment of the U.S Constitution. The value at question that the U.S. Constitution defends is political speech; any argument for its restriction must be demonstrate that such an act has adverse material impact.
Nevertheless, given the precedence that supports such an act in the United States, banning flag burning has had its favored partisans. In 2006, the then Republican majority in the U.S. Senate failed to amend the Constitution to ban desecration of the flag by just one vote.
This move to ban such a piece of political protest is consistent with two somewhat threatened and threatening propositions in the politics of Bangladesh.
In the first instance, it recalls the overwhelming and overdetermined draw of nationalism in the country’s politics. Country above all; let other things fall. Indeed, it seems, politicians in Bangladesh seem to agree with the proposition. “Country above all; let the people fall.” (On this, I’ll have more to say.)
Second, and perhaps more immediately troubling, the move resembles the Awami League’s concerted drive to drown out all protests and anti-incumbent views in the public and private sphere. Media outlets have been taken down; media managers dragged away. Banning flag burning effectively drowns out more political actions that might stand for a symbol, a sign for disenchantment with this ruling government.