Hasina's blemished legacy

Sheikh Hasina, the progeny of Bangladesh's founding patriarch Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, was once heralded as a transformative figure whose leadership ushered in an era of unprecedented economic prosperity for her nation. Under her aegis, Bangladesh experienced a remarkable surge in economic performance, characterised by a dramatic enhancement in export activity and an impressive elevation in the GDP growth rate. The taka gained considerable strength, and Bangladesh emerged as a rising economic titan within South Asia. These advancements, largely attributed to Hasina's policies aimed at job creation and economic stimulation, particularly for women, signified a period of remarkable progress.

Despite these early successes, Hasina's governance has increasingly drawn criticism and scrutiny, with her leadership increasingly likened to a dictatorial regime. This change can be attributed to three critical missteps that have not only overshadowed her earlier accomplishments but have also profoundly marred her legacy.

One of Hasina's most consequential errors was her disregard for democratic principles. Although she initially espoused a commitment to democratic governance, her approach to handling political opposition starkly contradicted these principles. Hasina systematically marginalised opposition parties, ensuring that her party, the Awami League, maintained an unchallenged monopoly on power. This strategic sidelining of political rivals, coupled with the suppression of dissent, undermined the democratic fabric of Bangladesh. Hasina's administration implemented a series of restrictive measures on media freedom, curtailing the ability of journalists and critics to openly challenge the government. The imposition of stringent censorship and the frequent shutdown of the internet were part of a broader strategy to stifle dissent and control the narrative. The lack of a robust opposition and unchecked power led to a governance style that increasingly resembled authoritarianism, rather than the democratic ideals Hasina once championed.

The second significant blunder in Hasina's tenure was her unwavering defence of the controversial quota system in government jobs. Initially introduced by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1972 as a means to reward those who contributed to the country's liberation, the system was intended to be a temporary measure. However, its continued application and expansion to subsequent generations became a source of widespread discontent. Hasina's administration's refusal to reform or abolish this system, despite mounting protests and demands for change, highlighted a troubling disconnect between the government and the needs of the populace. The persistence of the quota system fueled widespread resentment, particularly among the youth. Hasina's defence of the system, framed in terms of upholding her father's legacy, was perceived as a failure to address the evolving socio-political landscape. Hasina's rigid adherence to an outdated policy reluctance to acknowledge and address the grievances related to the quota system demonstrated a lack of adaptability and responsiveness to the legitimate concerns of the younger generation.

The most egregious mistake of Hasina's administration was the brutal suppression of student protests. In recent years, demonstrations by students and young activists against various issues, including the quota system, were met with excessive force by state security apparatus, highlighting a severe breach of human rights. The sight of students being targeted and killed for protesting against perceived injustices was a stark contrast to the democratic values Hasina initially espoused.

The cumulative effect of these critical errors - undermining democratic norms, defending an outdated and discriminatory quota system, and resorting to violent suppression of dissent - has profoundly impacted Sheikh Hasina's legacy. While her early achievements in economic development were notable, these subsequent actions have overshadowed her successes and contributed to a perception of her leadership as increasingly authoritarian.