The Misleading Promise of State Reform in Bangladesh

The term "state reform" has become a buzzword in contemporary Bangladesh, especially during periods of political turmoil and anti-government movements. However, much like the slogan "Change thyself, change" once used by Prothom Alo, the concept of state reform is often shrouded in confusion and misdirection. This article delves into the complexities of this term, explores its implications, and questions whether the current calls for reform are genuinely aimed at improving the state or if they serve more dubious agendas.

Prothom Alo newspaper once had a slogan, "Change thyself, change." At first glance, it sounds quite appealing. It feels as if, indeed, we need to change, and we need to bring about change. But this slogan immediately implies that a person is not good as they are, making them feel a need to improve. Later, when the person sees the slogan again, they may think, "Wait, I am fine as I am, so why should I change?" This is where the inner conflict begins.

It is likely that BDNews24 had placed large billboards at that time opposing this slogan, asking, "Why should I change? Why should I change things?" If I am good, and if things are fine as they are. Eventually, Prothom Alo changed the slogan. Their new one is "With what is good, there is Prothom Alo." This sounds better—always align with what is good. However, the question remains: Is Prothom Alo always with what is good? Or are they ever with the best?

Whether Prothom Alo aligns with what is good or not is irrelevant here. We can delve a bit into the term "state reform." I believe that, just like Prothom Alo’s slogan "Change thyself, change," the term "state reform" is equally confusing. The phrase "state reform" doesn’t specify anything clearly. Are we to change the entire state apparatus, or are we to reform only certain areas?

In the context of Bangladesh, it can be said that the state structure formed fifty-three years ago has, over time, and beyond the principles and proposals established for governance, reached a point where reform is necessary. However, neither the state leaders nor the intellectuals seem to have paid sufficient attention to this.

During the current anti-discrimination student movement and previous movements, we have seen the demand for "state reform" come to the fore. In all these movements, students have played a key role. The demand for "state reform" has also come from them. But how exactly are they carrying out "state reform" during and after these movements? This question becomes crucial.

As I’ve stated from the beginning, the movement demanding the abolition of the quota system or the freedom fighter quota was not genuinely about quota reform. The movement was primarily about creating an environment for a mass uprising and toppling the government through it. Therefore, it is safe to assume that this movement and all subsequent actions were premeditated.

After the fall of the Awami League government led by Sheikh Hasina, we observed chaos and devastation, but the government formed through the movement has yet to propose any solid course of action. Some of the activists remain on the streets, controlling traffic and painting murals related to their movement on the walls of various locations.

The government formed by the movement has been forcing the heads of all key state institutions to resign one by one. In one instance, some agitators, provoked by an adviser, besieged the Supreme Court in a hooligan manner, forcing the Chief Justice and the Appellate Division judges to step down. Forming a government on the pretext of "state reform" and attacking one of the state’s branches cannot, by any means, be considered state reform.

As I mentioned earlier, state reform has become necessary. But determining which areas of the state need reform is the first and most important task. On August 4, the "University Teachers Network" presented a five-point outline for transformation, explicitly stating that the interim government would form a council to draft a new constitution. From this proposal and the current activities, it appears that those involved in planning this movement intend to reject the constitution of independent Bangladesh and draft a new one. This is a grave threat for all of us.

Just as Dr. Muhammad Yunus used the lure of "microcredit" to make the poor poorer, it seems that the idea of "state reform" is being used as bait to deceive the Bengali people once again—perhaps to turn Bangladesh into "Banglastan" or something even worse.

To solve all the issues of misrule and autocracy in Bangladesh, we need to be specific. This is the responsibility of politicians, and we must let them do their job. If a non-political figure ascends to power under the guise of "state reform" to satisfy their ambition and revenge, it should be clear that their true purpose is not state reform, but something else entirely.

So far, the current government has remained silent on the attacks on the memory of the Father of the Nation, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, as well as on the assaults on the legacy of Rabindranath Tagore, the liberation war, and the language movement. Moreover, the presence of leaders from the banned Jamaat-e-Islami, traitors of 1971, at state functions following Sheikh Hasina’s departure from power, raises concerns about whether this government acknowledges the liberation war at all.

The need for a balanced system of governance in Bangladesh is undeniable, but it must be pursued through legitimate political channels. Political leadership, not opportunistic movements masked as state reform, should guide this process. True reform must be grounded in the values of the Liberation War, recognizing the sacrifices that shaped the nation. Only then can we ensure that the future of Bangladesh aligns with the aspirations of its people, rather than the ambitions of a few.

Written by:
Editor of Littlemag AkaalBodhon
Date: August 12, 2024