Lessons from regime change in Bangladesh

The students' movement in Bangladesh culminated into a situation - the regime change - which was unthinkable a year ago. For more than 15 years, Sheikh Hasina ruled Bangladesh with an iron hand crossing all limits of decency, tolerance, political pluralism and democratic norms. The same Sheikh Hasina, who looked invincible, arrogant and unshakable, had to fled to India in haste, leaving her supporters in the lurch.

Lessons from the regime change in Bangladesh cannot be analysed in isolation. The Awami League government which enjoyed a two-thirds majority was washed away in the flood of millions of people who revolted against the years of corruption, nepotism and a fascist mode of governance. Bangladesh doing well economically under Hasina proved to be a myth as the country is mired in huge debt and is suffering from growing unemployment and backbreaking price hike. Labeled as India's satellite state, Bangladesh had had its sovereignty compromised which further augmented anger among the vast majority of Bangladeshis.

Former East Pakistan that became Bangladesh in 1971 had a rich democratic tradition manifested by the right to free speech, only to be curtailed during the dictatorial rule of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. When Hasina crossed the line by unleashing a reign of terror against the protesting students, the die was cast. The measures like imposition of curfew, ban on social media and giving police the powers to crush the demonstrators proved that Hasina had lost control over the situation and was soon going to suffer a disgraceful fall. There was no vote of no-confidence against Sheikh Hasina in the Bangladeshi parliament because she enjoyed an absolute majority there; and that left only two options for her removal: pulling her out of the Prime Minister House by force or imposing a martial law. The military was not willing to take over during the students' agitation. In fact, when Army Chief General Waker-uz-Zaman on August 6 hinted at taking control, he was snubbed by student leaders. It was the power of students and the common people that made the task of regime change possible on August 5, 2024.

What are the lessons that need to be learned from the fall of Sheikh Hasina and how will this change in Bangladesh affect the region? Will civilian dictators and their handlers learn from how the people's power can force an autocrat to leave? One can contemplate three lessons emanating from the regime change in Bangladesh.

First, it is the unity among the students and other government opponents as well as their planning that helped achieved the impossible. Mere statements and rhetoric cannot lead to the removal of a tyrannical government. When the Awami League Students Wing failed to prevent the movement against the job quota system, it became clear that the myth of the Hasina government's invincibility had gone. This shows that that even without political support or push from the powerful hidden forces, a movement can dislodge a regime if those fighting for a cause are single-minded and do it on their own. Unfortunately, popular movements in Pakistan in 1968-69 and 1977 ended up in the imposition of martial law. There is a huge difference in the political culture of Pakistan and Bangladesh, with the former having weak democratic traditions. Just a couple of years back, it seemed that no force in Bangladesh can rise against corruption, nepotism, election rigging and use of force against political opponents. But soon the lava against the Sheikh Hasina regime exploded despite her ostensible invincibility. The student community in Bangladesh, protesting against the Awami League government, had made it clear that they would not compromise and continue with their agitation. Even after the Supreme Court had, in July 2024, ordered slashing jobs quota to only 7%, the protesting students refused to relegate and rather demanded Hasina's resignation. When, on August 4, thousands of protesters entered Dhaka from outside and marched towards the Prime Minister House, it sealed the political fate of Sheikh Hasina.

Second, the leadership matters a lot in the context of agitations. While in Pakistan most of those who claim to be in the opposition carry a price tag, Bangladesh proved it's different. Even though the situation is ripe for a change at the helm - due to severe economic crisis, growing unemployment, rising inflation, surge in the prices of electricity, gas and food items, and election rigging - none among the youths or students are there to launch a socio-economic and political movement. The level of tolerance in accepting the fascist mode of governance reached a breaking point in Bangladesh, which resulted in the outbreak of what is being termed second revolution that saw the symbols of Sheikh Hasina's dictatorial and corrupt mode of governance dismantled. There is need to note that the mafias standing behind the government of Sheikh Hasina failed to save her from the fall.

Finally, there has to a catalyst agent for a movement or agitation to succeed. In Bangladesh, students emerged as a catalyst - even operating without the support of any political party - because their leadership was resolute and clear-headed in accomplishing their goal anyhow. It means the absence of a catalyst cannot pose a challenge even to a regime which is unpopular, illegitimate, corrupt and incompetent. The regime of Sheikh Hasina had all the demerits but had survived for 15 long years because there was no catalysing force then. When she returned to power after fraudulent elections of January 2024, it seemed she would remain in power for another five years.

That the Modi-Hasina duo failed to prevent the regime change in Bangladesh also carries a lesson - even the backing of a strong neighbour does not work for a government which has gone unpopular.