Bangladesh’s One-Party Rule Poses Dilemma for Liberal Democracies

The corrupted elections in Bangladesh expose policy challenges for how Western democracies, including Australia, manage the growing authoritarian trend.

Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina won a highly controversial parliamentary election held on 7 January.  Her party Bangladesh Awami League (AL) won almost 75 percent of the seats, or 222 out of 300 in the House of the Nation (Jatiyo Shangsad). The remaining 25 percent of seats were won by independent candidates, with 52 seats, and the Jaitya Party, with 11 seats.

The independent candidates too are AL politicians who, having failed to get party tickets, opted to participate in the election independently. This leaves the Jaitya Party as a rump opposition.

The election was boycotted by country’s main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) on the grounds a free and fair election was impossible under Sheikh Hasina’s government. Before the election over 20,000 opposition activists were arrested and jailed. Human Rights Watch (HRW) called the government crackdown ahead of the election as “autocratic”.

The Election Commission of Bangladesh claimed that 41.8 percent voters participated in the election whereas investigative journalists found that the dashboard of the election commission was showing only 28 percent of eligible voter cast a ballot.

Without a credible opposition, the recent election in Bangladesh has now effectively established a one-party state as most members of parliament, including the independents, are from the ruling party.

However, Sheikh Hasina in a press conference held in Dhaka said:  “The election was free and fair…if any party does not participate in the election, it does not mean there is no democracy."

International response to the election was divisive and interesting. For example, Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh’s closest neighbour, India, took no time in congratulating Sheikh Hasina and the people of Bangladesh for successfully conducting elections, although one could argue that the majority of Bangladeshis did not cast votes in silent protest at unfair elections.

The ambassadors of China, Russia, most of the ASEAN states, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and most of the Middle East were quick to extend their support to Hasina too.

The liberal democracies, especially the US and UK, were critical. For example, the US said “the election was not free and fair” and it remained  concerned over “the arrests of thousands of political opposition members and by reports of irregularities on elections day”.

Before the election the US imposed visa restrictions on unnamed individuals who were suspected of undermining the democratic election process in Bangladesh. On international human rights day in 2021, the US Treasury levied sanctions against the elite Bangladeshi security force, the Rapid Action Battalion, in a bid to deter serious human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.

A UK Foreign Office statement on 8 January said that in Bangladesh the standards of democratic elections were not met consistently in the election and the UK was concerned that the significant number of arrests of opposition party members before polling day.

Despite being critical both the US and UK shared their commitment to continue to work with the Bangladesh government.

The UN’s top human rights official Volker Turk too called on the Bangladeshi Government   “to take the necessary steps to ensure that the human rights of all Bangladeshis are fully taken into account, and to strengthen the underpinnings of a truly inclusive democracy in the country”.

In contrast to other democratic powers EU high officials were timid, although they did express concern about the imprisonment of opposition figures. Australia was similarly restrained. While expressing regret that “the elections took place in an environment where not all stakeholders could participate meaningfully and substantially”, it expressed a commitment to work with Bangladesh as a “close partner”.

The divided reaction to Bangladesh election points to geopolitical dynamics that threaten to further erode the democratic order in the region, particularly due to the confluence of support by India, Russia and China for autocracy in Bangladesh.

What does this election mean for Australian policymakers? And how should Australia engage with Bangladesh? Here are two suggestions.

First, similar to the US and UK, Australia should not disengage from Bangladesh in the next five years. Australia should continue to support Bangladesh’s quest for development and invest in building Bangladesh’s capacity to stop asylum seeker boats coming to Australia.

However, Australia should also emphasise the significance of core democratic values that shape Australian society, including respect to human rights, the right to freedom of speech, the rule of law, and above all respect for political pluralism that enables peaceful transitions of power.

Australia should be mindful of the possibility of an increase of political refugees from Bangladesh if Hasina continues to repress the opposition. That is why it is in Australia’s  interest to engage with Bangladesh, hold a robust and open discussion about democracy and protection of human rights, including the right to protest.

Secondly, Australia should also be careful and vigilant over how it distributes an estimated $116.2 million in development aid to Bangladesh in 2023-24 and establish review mechanisms that ensure Australian taxpayers’ money does not end up supporting Bangladeshi officials who took an active part in human rights violations and undermining democracy. Currently a cornerstone  of Australia diplomacy toward Bangladesh is support for Bangladeshis to study for master’s degrees under the Australia Awards program at Australian tertiary institutions.  Among the target groups are officials from the government of Bangladesh, the Bangladesh central bank, and judicial services.

Australia should continue to support Bangladeshi officials, but should introduce greater screening, select officials through the prism of democracy and human rights, and avoid rewarding officials who have contributed to undermining democracy.

Dr. Mubashar Hasan is a post doctoral fellow at the Department of Culture Studies and Oriental Languages, University of Oslo, Norway.