Is Sheikh Hasina turning Bangladesh into a one-party state?

[Nilgiri]

What is happening now is really scaring the shit out of me; has she forgotten that whole tragic Rakkhibahini nonsense?

@Mage referenced it earlier in this thread too

During Mujib's time BAKSAL and a paramilitary force(Rokkhibahini) were wrecking havoc throughout the country. Present day AL's coalition partner JSD had a lot of its members killed. And now JSD praises Mujib.

 

[Mage]

What do you mean can't? That's exactly what the autocrat thrives on....you can't?....hah let me show you the way...because I certainly can!

The problem with BD here, whoever comes to power becomes autocratic. They don't want to create a valid framework separating and devolving powers. Rather they do whatever they can to cling to power by any means necessary.

Mujib wasn't going to willingly give up power. Neither would Zia. Both were killed. Ershad also did everything to stay in power, was forced out. BNP in 1996 tried to do what AL did in 2013...they failed...AL gave up power without much of a fuss after they were routed by BNP in 2001. Then BNP tried to conduct election by a puppet caretaker govt which crumbled due to AL's violent protests. Then AL came to power again and managed to do what BNP tried in 1996.

You see from the pattern, whoever comes, tries to become autocratic. They have no interest in doing what you are saying...that's why I am saying the people can't have a govt which will separate powers to different institutions who will be independent.

As of now I see the importance of BD developing fast.....too much time has been wasted due to political turmoil. What's the point changing the govt in every 5 years when both will be autocratic? I would prefer one autocratic govt for 20 years than 4 different autocratic govt in that period.

The problem is you can only judge stability/effect after the period has lapsed and in rearview mirror by some distance. Because during the time, the long term negatives are often not very accessible. I'm sure early Weimar Germany felt quite stable to many at the time (not saying the situation is like that exactly in BD, but to illustrate the hindsight effect).

Stability for stability sake is also a somewhat dicey argument. @Joe Shearer and I had a convo about it in another forum not too long ago, involving Socrates and his trial.

Stability for development sake is my argument. Many countries developed very fast under autocracy....Singapore under Lee Kwan, South Korea under their military dictator, Malaysia under Mahathir even Indonesia(Not comparable to the ones already mentioned, but still did well) under Suharto..Even Deng, to whom you attribute China's growth, was autocratic....Xi is autocratic.
BD should follow the route pf SK or Malaysia...when significantly developed, move to democracy. No point moving from one autocracy to another, every five years.

 

[Nilgiri]

As of now I see the importance of BD developing fast.....too much time has been wasted due to political turmoil. What's the point changing the govt in every 5 years when both will be autocratic? I would prefer one autocratic govt for 20 years than 4 different autocratic govt in that period.

Doubt the result is going to really be too different. Again you are judging all this in the "now" rather than hindsight. Only hindsight (when you have given time to see all the inertia from decisions of the current play out) is 20/20. For every good you perceive, there is also a cost happening....who are you to say which one is bigger factor for Bangladesh long term?....the time has not elapsed to judge that way. As long as a people can only think in small time frames, they will latch onto the same old vexing squandering mudhole of servitude.

Simply saying lets have one long term autocratic period than plural number of autocrats in same period does not suffice when you want to compare to successful autocrat periods of other countries (who fundamentally did things very differently to you from the outset). Why has Hasina not reduced one single excise duty on basic manufacturing assembly?...but rather bunker down on RMG (propped up largely by foreign consumer low tariffs i.e globalist feelz) only? This forces over reliance on forces/strategies completely different to East Asian Tigers (and you can see it in BD stagnant liquidity/investment in non-RMG production)....so the actual results of long term autocracy supposed benefit in BD case remains to be seen....and I am not optimistic given how little is being done on the issues that matter the most (and really how simple they are to do)....because you have to had done them 2 years ago already (when you were in the middle of a comfy political window) to even have a chance 5 or so years from now given the way these ramps work....and not even a slight indication you will do them now or even 2 years time. A crooked autocrat, however long its term, needs good dynamic bureaucrats below it (refer to Suharto bureaucracy for closest pragmatic ideal for Hasina), not more crooked autocrat types all busy on skimming off and profiting short term. The banking sector stasis is also a really telling sign of yet another crucial thing being squandered (and again not even a planned movement on it)....and that is really going to hurt BD later at the current on-take of loan fuelled GCF.

This is what I mean by autocracy for autocracy sake (rather than economic sake). If you don't even do the important (esp long term) economic reforms in the stability afforded, what is the point of the stability? Conversely, if you can do economic reforms even with instability (refer to Indian political scene in late 80s all the way to late 90s), is the argument for autocracy (in this region) really strengthened?

Stability for development sake is my argument. Many countries developed very fast under autocracy....Singapore under Lee Kwan, South Korea under their military dictator, Malaysia under Mahathir even Indonesia(Not comparable to the ones already mentioned, but still did well) under Suharto..Even Deng, to whom you attribute China's growth, was autocratic....Xi is autocratic.
BD should follow the route pf SK or Malaysia...when significantly developed, move to democracy. No point moving from one autocracy to another, every five years.

....and I addressed this just now. Can't just copy and paste autocracy and hope the real meat of the issue gets solved by virtue of some notion of stability. @Joe Shearer

 

[Joe Shearer]

Doubt the result is going to really be too different. Again you are judging all this in the "now" rather than hindsight. Only hindsight (when you have given time to see all the inertia from decisions of the current play out) is 20/20. For every good you perceive, there is also a cost happening....who are you to say which one is bigger factor for Bangladesh long term?....the time has not elapsed to judge that way. As long as a people can only think in small time frames, they will latch onto the same old vexing squandering mudhole of servitude.

Simply saying lets have one long term autocratic period than plural number of autocrats in same period does not suffice when you want to compare to successful autocrat periods of other countries (who fundamentally did things very differently to you from the outset). Why has Hasina not reduced one single excise duty on basic manufacturing assembly?...but rather bunker down on RMG (propped up largely by foreign consumer low tariffs i.e globalist feelz) only? This forces over reliance on forces/strategies completely different to East Asian Tigers (and you can see it in BD stagnant liquidity/investment in non-RMG production)....so the actual results of long term autocracy supposed benefit in BD case remains to be seen....and I am not optimistic given how little is being done on the issues that matter the most (and really how simple they are to do)....because you have to had done them 2 years ago already (when you were in the middle of a comfy political window) to even have a chance 5 or so years from now given the way these ramps work....and not even a slight indication you will do them now or even 2 years time. A crooked autocrat, however long its term, needs good dynamic bureaucrats below it (refer to Suharto bureaucracy for closest pragmatic ideal for Hasina), not more crooked autocrat types all busy on skimming off and profiting short term. The banking sector stasis is also a really telling sign of yet another crucial thing being squandered (and again not even a planned movement on it)....and that is really going to hurt BD later at the current on-take of loan fuelled GCF.

This is what I mean by autocracy for autocracy sake (rather than economic sake). If you don't even do the important (esp long term) economic reforms in the stability afforded, what is the point of the stability? Conversely, if you can do economic reforms even with instability (refer to Indian political scene in late 80s all the way to late 90s), is the argument for autocracy (in this region) really strengthened?



....and I addressed this just now. Can't just copy and paste autocracy and hope the real meat of the issue gets solved by virtue of some notion of stability. @Joe Shearer

What's happened to you? You've hit a purple streak. Both this and the previous note to Ocean were among your best.

Reading with avid interest......

The problem with BD here, whoever comes to power becomes autocratic. They don't want to create a valid framework separating and devolving powers. Rather they do whatever they can to cling to power by any means necessary.

Mujib wasn't going to willingly give up power. Neither would Zia. Both were killed. Ershad also did everything to stay in power, was forced out. BNP in 1996 tried to do what AL did in 2013...they failed...AL gave up power without much of a fuss after they were routed by BNP in 2001. Then BNP tried to conduct election by a puppet caretaker govt which crumbled due to AL's violent protests. Then AL came to power again and managed to do what BNP tried in 1996.

You see from the pattern, whoever comes, tries to become autocratic. They have no interest in doing what you are saying...that's why I am saying the people can't have a govt which will separate powers to different institutions who will be independent.

As of now I see the importance of BD developing fast.....too much time has been wasted due to political turmoil. What's the point changing the govt in every 5 years when both will be autocratic? I would prefer one autocratic govt for 20 years than 4 different autocratic govt in that period.


Stability for development sake is my argument. Many countries developed very fast under autocracy....Singapore under Lee Kwan, South Korea under their military dictator, Malaysia under Mahathir even Indonesia(Not comparable to the ones already mentioned, but still did well) under Suharto..Even Deng, to whom you attribute China's growth, was autocratic....Xi is autocratic.
BD should follow the route pf SK or Malaysia...when significantly developed, move to democracy. No point moving from one autocracy to another, every five years.

I don't agree, but I like your post. Well reasoned, though ultimately subject to attack. As @Nilgiri did successfully attack it.

 

[Mage]

Doubt the result is going to really be too different. Again you are judging all this in the "now" rather than hindsight. Only hindsight (when you have given time to see all the inertia from decisions of the current play out) is 20/20. For every good you perceive, there is also a cost happening....who are you to say which one is bigger factor for Bangladesh long term?....the time has not elapsed to judge that way. As long as a people can only think in small time frames, they will latch onto the same old vexing squandering mudhole of servitude.

Simply saying lets have one long term autocratic period than plural number of autocrats in same period does not suffice when you want to compare to successful autocrat periods of other countries (who fundamentally did things very differently to you from the outset). Why has Hasina not reduced one single excise duty on basic manufacturing assembly?...but rather bunker down on RMG (propped up largely by foreign consumer low tariffs i.e globalist feelz) only? This forces over reliance on forces/strategies completely different to East Asian Tigers (and you can see it in BD stagnant liquidity/investment in non-RMG production)....so the actual results of long term autocracy supposed benefit in BD case remains to be seen....and I am not optimistic given how little is being done on the issues that matter the most (and really how simple they are to do)....because you have to had done them 2 years ago already (when you were in the middle of a comfy political window) to even have a chance 5 or so years from now given the way these ramps work....and not even a slight indication you will do them now or even 2 years time. A crooked autocrat, however long its term, needs good dynamic bureaucrats below it (refer to Suharto bureaucracy for closest pragmatic ideal for Hasina), not more crooked autocrat types all busy on skimming off and profiting short term. The banking sector stasis is also a really telling sign of yet another crucial thing being squandered (and again not even a planned movement on it)....and that is really going to hurt BD later at the current on-take of loan fuelled GCF.

This is what I mean by autocracy for autocracy sake (rather than economic sake). If you don't even do the important (esp long term) economic reforms in the stability afforded, what is the point of the stability? Conversely, if you can do economic reforms even with instability (refer to Indian political scene in late 80s all the way to late 90s), is the argument for autocracy (in this region) really strengthened?



....and I addressed this just now. Can't just copy and paste autocracy and hope the real meat of the issue gets solved by virtue of some notion of stability. @Joe Shearer

Hard to disagree with this......but its not like a democratic govt makes everything better in BD's case either.

 

[24 Hours]

Reminder that corruption went DOWN under Hasina (granted it was little but at least It's something). Meanwhile Khaleda made no improvements whatsoever to the corruption in BD when she was in power. Despite all of BNP supporters deriding the corruption of AL. It was Ershad that started this and she didn't bother to do anything to improve it. With Hasina we got some improvement and that's what matters.

 

[Tanveer666]

Reminder that corruption went DOWN under Hasina (granted it was little but at least It's something). Meanwhile Khaleda made no improvements whatsoever to the corruption in BD when she was in power. Despite all of BNP supporters deriding the corruption of AL. It was Ershad that started this and she didn't bother to do anything to improve it. With Hasina we got some improvement and that's what matters.

True, but their BCL arm is what scares me the most.

 

[Homo Sapiens]

There is no alternative to democracy. Lack of democracy or failure of democracy should be corrected with more democracy, not less or with autocracy.

BNP should have put faith in the majority of the people of Bangladesh. Common people of Bangladesh will not tolerate a party seizing power by widespread vote rigging. BNP put entire faith on Caretaker govt. but none to our democratic vigilance. If history is any guide, then it is absolutely clear that, Bangladeshi people do not tolerate undemocratic govt. much long.They stupidly boycotted election and denied the people to see whether or not AL really resort to widespread vote rigging. And if vote rigging happened, a chance to protest. I do not think, Sheikh Hasina or wider AL leadership would have taken the risk of being labelled as a dictator like Ershad or Pinochet and entirely ruin their reputation as a democratic party and widespread domestic agitation and international criticism and possible punishment from the west. BNP thought they can topple govt. just by calling indefinite hartal. Which they tried in early 2015 and utterly failed and exposed it's vulnerability to govt. As BNP exposed itself as a weak party devoid of public support, Govt. double down crackdown upon it.So this emaciated opposition party given rise to the notion of autocracy.If BNP have an iota of brain then it should seize the opportunity of participating in the next election and give the challenge to AL to act democratic or loss face and legitimacy everywhere.

 

[Nilgiri]

Hard to disagree with this......but its not like a democratic govt makes everything better in BD's case either.

Well this is a thing all societies are grappling with (and sadly starting to fail long term with the current social degradation in play right now).....how to be democratic where its proper to be democratic and how to be authoritarian where its proper to be authoritarian. In South Asia generally and BD+Pak especially (as major nation states) there is often a full non-congruence on this, i.e quite often we are autocratic instead of democratic in various things and democratic instead of autocratic on others....in some of worst combinations I have seen given our clear body of history on what works and what doesn't. We have to take this head on, rather than use the stability for stability sake argument....because the ones that do and perpetuate these non-congruent distortions (for their own benefit) want you to buy that argument. Only with fully hedged, seperate channels of power, each defined well, is there a chance to achieve that sustainably long term.

Reminder that corruption went DOWN under Hasina (granted it was little but at least It's something). Meanwhile Khaleda made no improvements whatsoever to the corruption in BD when she was in power. Despite all of BNP supporters deriding the corruption of AL. It was Ershad that started this and she didn't bother to do anything to improve it. With Hasina we got some improvement and that's what matters.

Corruption has gone down in one year/two year time frames with BNP as well (if you are talking about corruption perception index)....i.e transients that are discussed in CPI methodology analysis as well.

How it holds longer term (i.e not a sinusoid proxy around a level but actual structural improvement long term, like was seen in Pakistan's case over a period of 5+ years etc and also Myanmar's) remains to be seen in the current small drop....not to mention how it also manifests in other indices of note (like the Cato freedom index etc).

What's happened to you? You've hit a purple streak. Both this and the previous note to Ocean were among your best.

Reading with avid interest......

I survey this subforum like a battlefield after the war now. Time to pick up the pieces and move on engaging with the worthy survivors that have proven themselves here. I really did enjoy discussing with @Mage on this topic for instance.

I wish the war never happened, like all war really...but it had its purpose somewhat well beyond anyone's control I also understand.

It happened I believe (from my perspective), a certain group of members here mistook certain things about me (and cpl others, including those from their "side" too). They took my compliments and friendliness for granted, and never took my genuine criticisms in same regard. That in itself didn't bother me, its when they twisted my approach for the windmills they made over time to charge at. I warned them, some of those windmills strike close to me, they took no heed....and you know my origin, there is only so much my "Durvasaar Kovum (anger)" could take. I do regret it got better of me in many instances, especially against people that once called me brother (Farewell my one time brother Rameses said to Moses in a great movie). I hope they do not bear any lingering venom on it....and if they do, may it be for the good of us all in the end, maybe after a bitter mind numbing sojourn away from this all.....to truly liberate those in chains rather than simply strike out against the taskmasters they concoct or perceive.....to realise you need to truly live and wallow in the mud first before talking of a deep knowledge of it and the simple solutions you think that will fix it.

Because you see in the end, I know what their people are really like and how grossly many here have gone against such good people I know....that formed my foundation of what I think of BD etc. "...because I saw in you a worth and a greatness above other men" as Seti told Moses....it does ring true for me, having formed the unbreakable kinship with a BD brother from another mother...a son of a real life freedom fighter no less (a somewhat big name in BD industry, a former BNP minister too for a while though I wont say where). Here they did wonder and probably many still do, why I have a keen interest and also well more than passing knowledge about BD inner workings....hah well the important stuff will stay mystery....it is best that way.

In the end my friend, I wish I took your advice earlier before it was too late...but I take solace in that the greatest enemy of mankind - ego, has been crushed and curtailed to varying degrees on all sides here. For that is where true liberation comes from, as our own culture shows us (whether you Atheist or believer on self-consious side of the greater Truth)....every Avatar purpose (and thus should be the purpose of all mankind) was exactly that....crushing the ego so the truth may shine through and ultimately reached. For in that great movie India once made, which has my favourite and heart-inspiring interlude where the charioteer sings of precisely the futility and illusion of ego...... even the best of us like Bhim-putr have that problem in us that shields the truth sometimes...and its lesson he himself teaches to the despicable ones in the end (hope you seen the movie and also the other one I reference earlier). Dunno how good your Telugu is (I sure miss that era of great actors like Ranga Rao):

@Vanamali

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Nilgiri

Now you are making me nervous. Every succeeding post you grow an inch.

Incidentally, just a few kilometres away, from Kowkoor near Risalla Bazaar down through Alwal, Lothkunta and Lalbazaar is a favourite multi-cuisine restaurant of mine. It's named Maya Bazaar. How did you dig this out? I loved the way he tried his illusions, and then his strength, on 'the charioteer'.

I read your note with the deepest empathy.

Your note to @Mage was also hugely insightful; I have a lot to say about it. But not on this forum.

 

[Centaur]

There is no alternative to democracy. Lack of democracy or failure of democracy should be corrected with more democracy, not less or with autocracy.

Which form of democracy? in West minister system all mp have power to vote against their own party .
In distorted version of BD democracy it's impossible .
So autocracy lies on 70th chapter in our constitution!
It made the two political parties dynastic
So what's the point of such democracy ,when you are already chained?
Remember the joke of hanif sanket? Since the definition of BD democracy has changed to, " Democracy is the government , off (of) the people , buy (by) the people and far (for) the people", so what's the point of such comedy?

If we need democracy then surely our political parties should accept democratic culture. Otherwise nominal democracy will be useless like past days.
If BD folks gain some self respect instead of hero worshiping( as Mujib became Bhagwan,zia became peer type idol too), then maybe democracy will be useful here. But when the time will come ?I don't think it will be possible in near future.

 

[Mage]

Well this is a thing all societies are grappling with (and sadly starting to fail long term with the current social degradation in play right now).....how to be democratic where its proper to be democratic and how to be authoritarian where its proper to be authoritarian. In South Asia generally and BD+Pak especially (as major nation states) there is often a full non-congruence on this, i.e quite often we are autocratic instead of democratic in various things and democratic instead of autocratic on others....in some of worst combinations I have seen given our clear body of history on what works and what doesn't. We have to take this head on, rather than use the stability for stability sake argument....because the ones that do and perpetuate these non-congruent distortions (for their own benefit) want you to buy that argument. Only with fully hedged, seperate channels of power, each defined well, is there a chance to achieve that sustainably long term.

Well, for an autocracy to be successful, the bureaucrats need to be efficient.....but BD bureaucracy is the worst....also autocrats need to understand the mentality of people.....it's probably better in a homogeneous country...where people have similar mindset(Herd mentality, some Indian member told me weeks ago, lol)......

Take Pakistan for example. I'd say their economic performance were better under military dictators.....Ayub Khan being the best...but it was his policies that eventually broke Pakistan into two....Zia's policies introduced terrorism.....Musharraf brought Pakistan to WOT from which they are still suffering...

I agree, it is necessary to understand where to be authoritarian and where to be democratic. Total authoritarianism will divide the country into two groups...one supporting the authoritarian another opposing it.......and then Libya all over again. Although I believe Bangladesh is united enough not to get into these.

 

[UKBengali]

Well, for an autocracy to be successful, the bureaucrats need to be efficient.....but BD bureaucracy is the worst....also autocrats need to understand the mentality of people.....it's probably better in a homogeneous country...where people have similar mindset(Herd mentality, some Indian member told me weeks ago, lol)......

Take Pakistan for example. I'd say their economic performance were better under military dictators.....Ayub Khan being the best...but it was his policies that eventually broke Pakistan into two....Zia's policies introduced terrorism.....Musharraf brought Pakistan to WOT from which they are still suffering...

I agree, it is necessary to understand where to be authoritarian and where to be democratic. Total authoritarianism will divide the country into two groups...one supporting the authoritarian another opposing it.......and then Libya all over again. Although I believe Bangladesh is united enough not to get into these.

Ayub had access to huge fiscal transfers from BD that the democratic rulers of Pakistan never had.

 

[Nilgiri]

Ayub had access to huge fiscal transfers from BD that the democratic rulers of Pakistan never had.

Tiny and marginal transfer, probably less than 1% of GDP a year....and that too not accounting for what E. Pakistan got institutionally long term.

Simply braying this like the 3 million hoax won't get you far....because the actual budget figures of Pakistan show actual evidence on the matter.

 

[Skies]

Tiny and marginal transfer, probably less than 1% of GDP a year....and that too not accounting for what E. Pakistan got institutionally long term.

Simply braying this like the 3 million hoax won't get you far....because the actual budget figures of Pakistan show actual evidence on the matter.

I do not see any significant sign to wealth transfer.

Closer look

https://www.google.com/publicdata/e...BGD:PAK&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false