August 5 was a historic day for Bangladesh for more reasons than one. The Awami League (AL), the party whose cause was a cornerstone in Bangladesh's history, was ousted by the masses.

Since independence, political turmoil has been part of narratives closely related to Bangladesh. One of the factors which worked in the AL's favour, from the time the party assumed responsibility in 2009, was that it was regarded as the most progressive and liberal party to have gained power following liberation. At that point in time, AL's values struck a chord with the secular middle-class Bangladeshi. The preceding regimes association with elements such as the military, fundamentalism, and state-centric politics aided in this regard.

Fast forward to 2024, and one finds that the AL-led 14-party alliance's rule is being labelled "fascist."

Read more

From one party to one person: What was de facto is now de jure

The AL regime has been somewhat of a conundrum. The Perspective Plan of Bangladesh 2041 (PP 2041), which was published in 2020, envisioned to build on economic advancements and enhance the lives of people. The AL accommodated more public-private partnerships within the media world than any other party before and oversaw the widespread introductions of leading social media websites such as Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram. Indeed, the regime looked outwards and allowed creative media productions to be released, which did not always comply with the more conservative National Broadcast Policy of 2014. Accordingly, the party is largely responsible for digitalising a new generation of Bangladeshis, many of whom have smartphones and global aspirations today and took to the streets during the recent protests. Student coordinators such as Nahid Islam and Asif Mahmud are surely part of that generation and are, in fact, products of "Digital Bangladesh."

"Digital Bangladesh" was a pillar that supported the party's return to the centre in 2009 and represented its defiance of right-wing politics. AL's reformist approaches resonated with the masses in the context of globalisation and the interrelatedness of international networks in the 21st century. Their alliance with left-wing parties enabled the AL to stay in power and inspire many in the country. But, as it has transpired, the 14-party alliance seems to have paved the way for more dreams than stairs to reach those ambitions.

The recent movement portrayed the angst and frustration of the people from various sectors in Bangladesh, including journalism. The protests that began in the first week of July should be credited for capturing on-the-ground reactions. The mass killings, detentions, disappearances and violence against unarmed protestors that took place during this movement truly called into question the ethos of AL's political mandate. Over 400 people have lost their lives during the quota reform movement between July 16 and August 4, with some claiming that the number may well be understated. It has also been put forward that hospital records have been tampered with and bodies hidden, further putting into question just how many people have sacrificed their lives to bring an end to AL's rule.

Students have always been integral to the political narrative of Bangladesh. The fall of the Ershad regime was not brought about only by workers, but students as well, who endeavoured to take the nation forward on the path of democracy. Students again played their part in 2008 and 2013, when the Shahbagh Protests signalled their support for secular and not communal politics. In 2024, students took a stance once against the fascist practices of the Awami regime.

Read more

‘Why would Awami League need to resort to rigging in this scenario?’

The tragic reality is that the AL committed to preserving democracy in the country, but backed the said promise by fascist means. The quota reform movement, which eventually led to the AL government's end, stemmed from opposition to fascist practices which often granted AL supporters, activists, and leaders the license to terrorise communities around the country. Throughout its rule, the former ruling party publicly branded opposition parties, such as the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), and its allies as being fundamentalist and in conflict with the progressive agenda of the party.

While AL's statement may well be true when considering the realities of grassroots politics and the history of BNP and its allies, the Awami League's ideology also correlated with its globalist persuasions. The AL attained success in this sphere and was able to, for a period since 2009, be the flagbearer of the identity of the modern Bangladeshi. But, at present the premise of AL is being questioned and it remains to be seen how that plays out.

In essence, what the masses including the youths of Bangladesh have conveyed through this movement is that they are averse to right-wing politics in general, and both AL and BNP are considered part of that category today. This is very important to consider as we eventually transition to political-administrative rule again. Only time will tell whether progressive politics really do see the light of day in Bangladesh and who will be the leading stakeholders of the future. Meanwhile, the appointment of Nobel Laureate Dr Muhammad Yunus as the chief of the interim government seems to be a step in the right direction.        

Nihad Nowsher works in business development.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.

In 1978, a book edited by Guy Hermet, Richard Rose and Alain Rouquie was published with an interesting title, Elections without Choice. The book drew some attention soon after its publication, but little did we know that, decades later, the notion of "elections without choice" would become so relevant to the world in general but more so for Bangladesh. As the country is heading towards an exercise that the incumbent is calling an election, it is imperative that we understand what is in the making.

The edited volume of Elections without Choice was an outcome of a research project initiated by the Committee on Political Sociology, composed of the International Political Science Association and the International Sociological Association. The editors quite rightly noted that political scientists deliberately avoid discussing non-competitive elections, because those elections do not meet the fundamental criterion of a liberal democracy. Not only did they underscore the need for understanding non-competitive elections, but also insisted that such elections are important in tracing the trajectory of each country.

Read more

Placing dummies as alternatives disenfranchises voters

The book was published at a time when the world was witnessing a gradual shift towards democracy, one country at a time. The Carnation Revolution in 1974 in Portugal and the death of Francisco Franco in 1975 in Spain started a wave, identified as the "Third Wave of Democracy" by Samuel Huntington in 1991. In the early days of democratisation, promoted by Western countries, it was assumed that an election was a key indicator of the political liberalisation process.

In the 1990s, with the demise of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall, democracy proliferated globally. It was believed that democratic regimes would be the norm and there could be only a few holdouts of autocratic regimes. But within less than a decade, two features became evident. The first one was that elections by themselves do not demonstrate democratisation, because authoritarian regimes also hold elections that are manipulated. The second feature was the emergence of a new kind of regime, with some apparent democratic traits but which are essentially autocratic; they were called hybrid regimes.

The 2014 election was boycotted by the opposition, yet strategies such as packing the Election Commission, or harassing the opposition, or changing electoral rules were used by the incumbent. In the 2018 election, another tool was added—keeping opposition candidates off the ballot—and this was done both by confining leaders and cancelling their nominations on flimsy grounds, making the candidates spend time at the courthouse, which has not been helpful to the candidates.

Subsequently, these regimes, which often hold elections and win at ease, were described as "electoral authoritarianism." These regimes tend to hold regular elections, but these elections are engineered in a fashion that opposition parties have little to no chance to win. In both closed autocracy and hybrid regimes, these exercises are essentially "elections without choice." Consequently, the attention of political scientists and observers shifted to the "quality" of elections.

Evidence mounted in the 2000s that autocrats and rulers of the hybrid regimes manipulate elections. Election manipulation was not a new phenomenon. However, from the 1970s through the 1990s, manipulation of elections was easily detectable: there was blatant rigging, which included capturing polling booths on election day and weapon-wielding party loyalists scaring voters away from polling stations and stuffing the ballot boxes.

But as these hybrid regimes emerged and the despots needed to have some semblance of legitimacy to continue their rule, rigging of an election took a different route. This is the period of regression of democracy, often described as "democratic backsliding," which political scientist Nancy Bermeo defined as "the state-led debilitation or elimination of any of the political institutions that sustain an existing democracy." These political institutions, Bermeo reminded us in an essay, include "all the institutions that enable people to formulate and signify preferences and then have them weighed by their elected representatives."

Two years after Bermeo's essay was published, a seminal book by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt published in 2018, titled How Democracies Die, unequivocally stated that sometimes democracy dies with a bang, with coups, quickly and forcefully. But lately it happens slowly, incrementally; "democratic backsliding today begins at the ballot box." The would-be autocrats rise through the elections, and then they change the rules of the game. Levitsky and Ziblatt use the analogy of a football game. "To consolidate power, the would-be authoritarians must capture the referees, sideline at least some of the other side's star players, and rewrite the rules of the game to lock in their advantage, in effect tilting the playing field against their opponent." When they talk of a referee, in the political context, who are they referring to? "These include the judicial system, law enforcement bodies, and intelligence, tax and regulatory agencies," they write.

Election, in a tilted field, is already rigged in such a manner that it can deliver only one result—a victory for the incumbent. The manipulation of elections, Bermeo told us, is one of the three key features of democratic backsliding. But such manipulation is not like how the classical autocrats used to do it—blatantly. Instead, these are "strategic manipulation," which includes "a range of actions aimed at tilting the electoral playing field in favor of incumbents." Bermeo provides a list of these actions: "keeping opposition candidates off the ballot," "packing electoral commissions," "changing electoral rules to favor incumbents," and "harassing opponents." Usually, these are done "in such a way that the elections themselves do not appear fraudulent" and are intended to fool election observers and the international community.

Read more

How constitutional is the 15th amendment?

As for these practices, perhaps nobody else has identified them better than Nic Cheeseman and Brian Klaas. Their book, published in 2018, is titled How to Rig an Election. The name sounds like a manual. In some measures, it is so. Only that they have dissected the manual or the playbook of the autocrats drawing on elections around the world. Cheeseman and Klaas identified the leaders who go for rigging: "Leaders are most likely to try and stay in power when they believe that their presence is essential to maintain political stability; in cases when they are less committed to plural politics; when they have engaged in high-level corruption and/or human rights abuses; when they lack trust in rival leaders and political institutions; when they have been in power for a longer period of time; and when they control geostrategically important states with natural resources, effective security forces, weak institutions and high levels of distrust."

They looked at six strategies that autocrats use to manipulate elections: gerrymandering (shaping electoral constituencies to the incumbent's benefit), vote buying, repression of opposition, hacking the election, stuffing the ballot box, and playing the international community. Interestingly, while ballot box stuffing is the most effective strategy, considering the risk of exposure, often autocrats use other strategies ahead of the election to ensure a victory. This is how elections are held by autocratic regimes.

Since the 2014 election, none of these strategies have been in short supply in Bangladesh. That election was boycotted by the opposition, yet strategies such as packing the Election Commission, or harassing the opposition, or changing electoral rules were used by the incumbent. In the 2018 election, another tool was added—keeping opposition candidates off the ballot—and this was done both by confining leaders and cancelling their nominations on flimsy grounds, making the candidates spend time at the courthouse, which has not been helpful to the candidates.

Read more

How to judge the Election Commission’s performance

These have delivered victory, not only a hollow one but something more than that, if we borrow from Cheeseman and Klass: "so one sided as to beggar belief, exposing the ruling party to ridicule." The ruling Awami League has not, by any means, abandoned its 2014 and 2018 strategies, but instead has become further audacious. The violent crackdown on opposition since October 28, arrests of BNP leaders, convictions of BNP leaders and activists at lightning speed, and shutting down party offices are testimonies to the continuation of these strategies. They also show how referees have been captured.

But in search of a way to avoid the ridiculous situations of winning 153 seats unopposed in 2014 or winning 96 percent of seats with allies in 2018, and additionally to "play the international community," it has invented a new way called fielding "dummy candidates." The so-called 'dummies" are candidates who belong to the ruling party but are contesting the election as "independents" with the approval of the party. Besides, the smaller parties, "king's parties," and individuals who have been cajoled or coerced into participating in the election, thanks to state apparatuses, would like to run under the symbol of the ruling AL.

Ironically, these have not saved the party from being a subject of ridicule, but made it more embarrassing for it long before a single vote has been cast. Importantly, all these have laid bare that the ruling AL is moving towards an "election without choice."

Ali Riaz is distinguished professor of political science at Illinois State University in the US, non-resident senior fellow of the Atlantic Council, and president of the American Institute of Bangladesh Studies (AIBS). His forthcoming book is titled 'Pathways of Autocratization: The tumultuous journey of Bangladeshi politics.'

Views expressed in this comment are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.

A historic leader, no matter how great or powerful, needs to be discussed, debated, and learnt from—not blindly followed. That goes for Bangabandhu, too. Until recently, saying this out loud would have been tantamount to sacrilege in an environment of total adulation cultivated over the past 15 years. But the sheer, unadulterated disregard shown for the chief architect of our independence soon after the Awami regime's collapse has upended all calculations. Perhaps equally telling has been the relative lack of surprise or even sympathy, at least of the kind you would have expected. All this calls for a re-evaluation of Bangabandhu's legacy in this new era of revolution.

An argument can be made about how much of the anger directed at Bangabandhu's statues and murals on August 5 was really aimed at the man himself. Indeed, during the mayhem that followed Sheikh Hasina's escape, many other monuments and landmarks of historical significance were also attacked. Even the parliament building, Ganabhaban, and the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) were not spared, as mobs swarmed and vandalised them, many making off with furniture, bedding, potted plants, etc.

How has a man who deserves the highest honour for his role in our independence struggle come to be treated with such disrespect? PHOTO: COLLECTED

However, if there was a common target in this outburst of raw emotion, it was the key symbols of power—and what better symbol of it than the personality that Awami League had so unabashedly exploited to assert its supremacy? Many of the estimated 1,220 statues and murals it had erected of him across the country were damaged or pulled down. The historic Mujibnagar Memorial Complex in Meherpur, where he stood tall among other sculpted heroes of the Liberation War, lies in ruins. Even his residence-turned-museum in Dhanmondi was looted and burnt down. 

There are various theories about the men behind this vandalism. One involves angry mobs taking it out on anything associated with Awami League. Another involves a vague, and frankly unhelpful, reference to the re-rise of anti-liberation forces. Some observers simply blamed "miscreants" for taking advantage of a fluid security situation. But it's worth recalling that Bangabandhu's murals and statues had been destroyed even during Awami League's iron-fisted rule. This suggests that the latest vandalism was not just a momentary madness—any resentment was long in the making. And the fact that the national holiday on August 15 would be cancelled soon after, in a unanimous decision by the council of advisers and political parties, further represents the shifting ground beneath the once-inviolable stature of Bangabandhu.

How has a man who deserves the highest honour for his role in our independence struggle come to be treated with such disrespect? At the risk of sounding clichéd, let's just say this is what happens when respect is imposed, legislated, and weaponised. Over the years, we have seen how the Awami regime and intelligentsia cultivated blind, unquestioning adulation, suppressing any nuanced and dispassionate study of the man who led a very eventful life.

How has it come to this? How has a man who deserves the highest honour for his role in our independence struggle come to be treated with such disrespect? At the risk of sounding clichéd, let's just say this is what happens when respect is imposed, legislated, and weaponised. Over the years, we have seen how the Awami regime and intelligentsia cultivated blind, unquestioning adulation, suppressing any nuanced and dispassionate study of the man who led a very eventful life.

We have seen how the personality cult around him was continually enhanced through an infinite mix of Bangabandhu-themed monuments, billboards, textbooks, notes and coins, postage stamps, etc. His posters were churned out and plastered everywhere, his portraits hung in every government office. From hospitals to universities to safari parks to high-tech centres to bridges and expressways—everything bears his name. His words were turned into catchphrases, his speeches tirelessly rebroadcast on state television. His life spawned innumerable books, shorts, and movies, often through state sponsorship, giving him a saint-like status. And anyone who dared to question it would be silenced through various legal tools.

Read more

Beyond Liberation

Even Bangabandhu would have found this deification quite distasteful, had he been alive today.

This is quite unprecedented not just in the subcontinent, but perhaps anywhere in the world. In India, where we saw Congress live off Mahatma Gandhi for decades, he was not subjected to such wholesale deification. In Cuba, you will not see any statues of Fidel Castro. In fact, naming of any street, institution, locality or monument after Castro is prohibited by law. There is then the idolatry encouraged by other communist leaders such as Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin or North Korea's Kim family, but that too may pale in comparison to the ubiquitous presence of Bangabandhu in Bangladesh.

For many in today’s Bangladesh, Bangabandhu was a story narrated to us through a carefully chosen medley of pictures, historical accounts, audio clips, and video footage. PHOTO: Jack Garofalo

For those of us who grew up in recent decades, Bangabandhu was a story narrated through a carefully orchestrated medley of pictures, historical accounts, audio clips, and video footage. It kept you in awe of the person. It kept you at a distance. We were raised to bow before his altar without really understanding him, and marvel at his greatness without knowing, beyond the highlights of his career, what made him great to his people. He was, for us, not someone we could easily relate to, but one shrouded in reverent mystique.

But the way to approach a great leader is not by ignoring his past deeds or his humanness, but by acknowledging how these helped him become the man he was destined to be. A leader doesn't have to be flawless. Englishmen do not deny that millions of Bangalees starved to death in 1943 when Winston Churchill diverted food to British soldiers and other colonies while a deadly famine swept through Bengal. In China, Mao-bashing is very much a thing. Even though he and his descendants mounted campaigns that developed the country and simultaneously elevated his cult of personality, many associate his legacy with mass murder and violent class struggle. Similarly, many other leaders who led their nations to their most glorious moments had to face the bitter test of time as their legacy was subjected to harsher interpretations—often as an opposite reaction to their deification.

Like many revolutionaries who later became statesmen, Bangabandhu had his fair share of mistakes and failures. Sometimes he learnt from them, sometimes he failed to. Sometimes he made bad judgement calls. Sometimes his decisions distanced him from trusted aides, and even had had the inadvertent effect of isolating the very people he loved and fought for. Those were not his brightest moments—those were his "human" moments. But this is precisely what made him someone the new generation could identify with—a man with human triumphs and failings—yet this is the part that was often buried.

For his part, Bangabandhu was known for his remarkable affinity with the ordinary people. The candour with which he interacted with them is legendary. He commanded their respect, rather than forcing it upon them. However, like many revolutionaries who later became statesmen, Bangabandhu had his fair share of mistakes and failures. Sometimes he learnt from them, sometimes he failed to. Sometimes he made bad judgement calls. Sometimes his decisions distanced him from trusted aides, and even had had the inadvertent effect of isolating the very people he loved and fought for. Those were not his brightest moments—those were his "human" moments. But this is precisely what made him someone the new generation could identify with—a man with human triumphs and failings—yet this is the part that was often buried.

Read more

The lasting symbolism of Bangabandhu

The challenge of the post-truth age is that no legacy is innately secure, and truths in politics are invariably contingent. In post-truth politics, you appeal to emotion rather than objective facts to shape public opinion. Emotion excites the mind and lasts for a while, but for a lasting impact, there is no alternative to a narrative based on facts and truths. Bangabandhu as a subject of study should be approached with an openness to embrace truths, however unflattering.

In the new age of revolution, Bangabandhu can be just Bangabandhu—or Sheikh Saheb, or Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, or simply "Mujib"—without the obsessive, cultist praise following him but also without meaningless criticism along party lines. He will still remain the Father of the Nation, but more human, more relatable, more in alignment with other heroes of our independence. And for that, it is essential that he be restudied and reimagined by subjecting his life and legacy to broader interpretations.

Badiuzzaman Bay is assistant editor at The Daily Star. He can be reached at badiuzzaman.bd@gmail.com

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.

On January 7, many people will not vote, but many others probably will. There are voters, not just first-timers, who are aching to go out even if just to see the inside of that hallowed ground called a polling booth. Having been twice disenfranchised through elections that have since passed into the annals of democracy as examples of "managed elections" or "elections without choice," it is safe to assume that these people would be desperate, seeking, even seething. Partisans will be happy to oblige calls for casting their ballot and add bodies to the count, like the tin soldiers on a game board; dissenters will be there to make a point; and those in between will be there because, well, they just would like to.

You've already met the dummy candidates, aka independents. Now, meet dummy voters.

For what are voters without any real choice, or power, if not glorified dummies? Now that BNP and like-minded parties are out of the race and unable to scupper its re-election plan, Awami League can again safely trust in voters. People can have the satisfaction, however temporary, of voting against it, or for it, and the party can have the satisfaction of still coming out victorious. In a climate described by a columnist as being "of the AL, for the AL, and by the AL," with it handpicking both its candidates and rivals, the outcome is a foregone conclusion. The dummies are just there to make the inevitable happen.

How much of a choice do general voters really have in this suffocating situation? Even if we disregard the "fear" factor playing in the background, voters, in a democracy, are entitled to have credible options to choose from, which clearly they don't at the moment. Their role has been reduced to that of a helpless participant, treasured so long as they are useful, with no guarantee of even coming out of this fruitless exercise unscathed. In other words, not only are people not getting to vote for whomever they want, but they cannot even not cast their votes. Even dissenters who are planning to vote as a protest will inevitably be strengthening the hands of the orchestrators of this catch-22 situation.

It is, therefore, no longer the sole responsibility of the Election Commission to ensure voters' presence at the polling booths. It is Awami League's too, and the party is going out of its way to get them to the booths—even those who are not happy with the government. Speaking to reporters, an influential leader from Narayanganj said, "Our appeal to voters is, vote for whomever you want. Don't vote for me [if you don't want to], but do still come to the polling station and vote, because it is your right. Don't squander your right. You have no right to criticise the government if you don't vote." Regardless of the problematic line of reasoning, the call to vote, for once, seems genuine.

Read more

Forced voting to fool the world?

But there is still a tightrope to walk lest the motley assortment of independents, fake challengers, and allies-in-disguise somehow outperform Awami League in the final vote count, thus staging the biggest coup in the history of managed elections. It will be something of a disaster for the party's rank and file if, after all the scheming and browbeating and in the absence of any real opposition, it doesn't have a landslide victory. But it will be equally disastrous if it does—at least for its attempt to show a competitive election to the outside world. So voters have their job cut out for them: they will be expected to vote against AL, but not too zealously, so that a decent, respectable-looking victory can be achieved in the end.

Read more

A Potemkin election in Bangladesh?

In such a hazy situation, we can only speculate about what the minds behind Awami League's re-election campaign are really thinking. It is a testament to the complexities of this election, and the expanding AL multiverse, that so many conflicting theories seem plausible at the same time. The official line is an insufficient measure for understanding the whole situation, and can be at odds with the messages coming from grassroots. For example, how to ensure the presence (and compliance) of voters? Partisan voters are not a problem but they don't likely form the majority either, despite extravagant claims by the party of having 70 percent of the total population ready to vote for it. So, there seems to be a "carrot and stick" policy afoot to both court and intimidate general voters.

Read more

Elections without choice: A leaf out of autocrats’ playbook

Officially, besides frequent entreaties to vote, Awami League has already trained over 200,000 campaign workers, each responsible for bringing 200 voters to their local polling station, as part of an offline scheme. Unofficially, there have been a number of instances of threats being issued to noncompliant voters since the election campaign began. Among them were threats of breaking the hands and legs of opposition supporters, cutting non-voters or dissenting voters off from social safety net benefits, cutting off their utility lines, etc. These warnings are not to be taken lightly considering how swift past retributions were, and how a big party like BNP was all but incapacitated within mere months through mass arrests, ghost cases, and rushed convictions. According to the finance ministry, there were more than 1.28 crore beneficiaries of social safety net programmes in the 2022-23 fiscal year. BNP has alleged that the government is "targeting" these beneficiaries to fill up polling booths.

Read more

How to make dissenters out of citizens

How much of a choice do general voters really have in this suffocating situation? Even if we disregard the "fear" factor playing in the background, voters, in a democracy, are entitled to have credible options to choose from, which clearly they don't at the moment. Their role has been reduced to that of a helpless participant, treasured so long as they are useful, with no guarantee of even coming out of this fruitless exercise unscathed. In other words, not only are people not getting to vote for whomever they want, but they cannot even not cast their votes. Even dissenters who are planning to vote as a protest will inevitably be strengthening the hands of the orchestrators of this catch-22 situation.

Read more

The facade of a competitive election

What Awami League seems to want is a restaging of the 2014 election minus the stigma of unopposed wins and voter-less polling booths. This is being done "to fool the world," as a columnist of this daily has recently argued. However, it cannot take away from the unfolding farce of an election that will be fair, competitive and participatory on paper but none of the above in reality, whether the world acknowledges it or not.

Badiuzzaman Bay is assistant editor at The Daily Star.

Views expressed in this comment are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.

The gory images of a bleeding Raoof Hasan, spokesperson for Imran Khan's party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), from a few days back were again a stark reminder of the autocratic way in which the Pakistani state under the control of its army is crushing political dissent. He was attacked on May 20 outside the office of a private TV channel by a group of four or five people, who have not been identified yet. Yet, PTI itself as well as many neutral observers are suspicious about the involvement of state spy agencies in the attack. Hasan is one of the most high-profile PTI leaders currently who are not in jail, and he is a well-respected civil society activist in his own right.

But the attack is just one of the ways in which the new regime, having the full backing of the army, has attempted to silence and sideline the opposition. Crushing dissent in Pakistan has a long history going right back to the period after its birth in 1947. The most egregious example was the massive atrocities committed in its ex-eastern wing in 1971, which led to the division of the country and the emergence of Bangladesh as an independent country. Since then, this pattern has continued during martial law periods as well as civilian eras with strong army control. Under PTI's regime, too, such crackdown against the present parties in power was common. It has taken a more ominous tone and higher levels since the new regime came to power in March this year. It has included jailing and disappearing opponents, filing dubious cases against them, blocking social media, passing laws to suppress free speech, and muffling the voices of political opponents on TV, in parliament and in real life.

Read more

Six judges' defiant act in Pakistan

Hundreds of PTI senior leaders, journalists and workers continue to languish in jail on dubious charges even before conviction. Imran Khan himself has been in jail for over six months, initially without any conviction. Later, he was convicted in three or four dubious cases, some of which have been overturned by higher courts. Appeal of the last two convictions against him are in their final stages and most independent legal observers think that they will be overturned in a few days. But they also think that the state will then arrest him in other cases as they cannot take the risk of releasing him given the political instability he could cause. Other PTI leaders and workers are often released after they are forced into jail to strike a deal with the state to announce their resignation from PTI in staged press conferences upon release. Dozens of party workers have simply disappeared, either kidnapped by the state agencies or gone into hiding given the fear of being arrested.

The social media platform X (formerly twitter) remains blocked in Pakistan for over two months as the government sees it as a primary vehicle for PTI to mobilise its workers and leaders and share critical information with them. While courts have ordered the government to reinstate X services, government agencies have simply ignored the court order. Laws and policies are being adopted to silence dissent. The provincial government in Punjab passed a defamation law last week which gives sweeping powers to government-appointed tribunals to punish people who criticise government functionaries and makes it difficult to file appeals against their verdicts. Another government circular bans journalists from reporting on court proceedings given the large number of cases against PTI leaders where proceedings are going against the government.

Newspapers and TV channels face pressure from the government and intelligence agencies against giving air time to PTI leaders or including news content favourable to PTI. Many pro-PTI journalists have been forced to leave the country or go underground. The attack on Raoof Hasan was part of this effort. There are increased restrictions on covering the court proceedings being held in jail against Imran Khan, and on his party leaders trying to meet him in jail.

Read more

Pakistan election outcome: A bridge to nowhere

While similar tactics were used by PTI against opposition parties when it was in power in 2018-22, the scale, speed and intensity of such actions is much higher now. Khan has gone to the extent of claiming that the crackdown against his party is similar to that against the Awami League in 1971 and may lead to the same consequence: division of the country. While the crackdown against PTI is highly condemnable, this comparison may be exaggerated given the scale of the atrocities that happened in 1971, which co-incidentally were committed under the command of a close relative of Imran Khan—the infamous General AK Niazi.

These abuses against PTI are happening in addition to the massive rigging against it in the February 2024 national elections. The situation is likely to get more heated in the coming months as the trials against Imran Khan and other leaders and those related to election-rigging reach their conclusion and the economic situation gets worse. Pakistan is about to enter a new IMF programme which may result in higher inflation, higher utility charges, and increased unemployment. Public discontent against the government as well as PTI's popularity will increase even though its own performance in power was poor. However, even those tactics are unlikely to lead to political instability or economic turnaround.

Meanwhile, Pakistan is also facing increased terrorist attacks from the Afghanistan-based terrorists as well as a heightened insurgency in Balochistan province, which has faced decades of atrocities like ex-East Pakistan did until 1971. Thus, Pakistan's prospects of finding peace and progress remain dim for the foreseeable future.

Dr Niaz Murtaza is an Islamabad-based political economist with a PhD from the University of California, Berkeley. He can be reached at murtazaniaz@yahoo.com. His X handle is @NiazMurtaza2

Views expressed in this article are the author's own. 

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.