In the annals of political science, parties are often analyzed through the prism of their ultimate desire: power. No matter how noble their beginnings, political parties—once institutionalized—inevitably evolve into structures driven by an insatiable hunger for authority. Their roles shift with time and circumstance, influenced by the ever-changing demands of the state, the nation, and the aspirations of the people.
The post-colonial political landscape of the Third World has seen an intriguing pattern. During anti-colonial struggles, diverse ideological groups often merge under a single political banner, forming what scholars term "umbrella parties." These conglomerates of varying beliefs temporarily unite under a shared mission—freedom from imperial domination. But this alliance is often short-lived. Once independence is attained, the necessity for such ideological consolidation dissipates. Fragmentation becomes inevitable as distinct factions emerge to assert competing visions of the new nation.
Such was the case with the Muslim League during the twilight years of British rule in the Indian subcontinent. Before 1947, Muslims across India rallied under the banner of the Muslim League, which subsequently took the reins of power in the newly formed Pakistan. However, the singular authority of the League began to fracture soon after, with discontent brewing on both sides of the geographically split nation—especially in the eastern wing.
The post-independence period in East Pakistan was marked by growing disenchantment with the West Pakistani-dominated Muslim League. Its indifference to the region’s linguistic, cultural, and economic aspirations bred resentment. The formation of the East Pakistan Awami Muslim League on June 23, 1949, in a modest setting in Dhaka’s KM Das Lane signified a historic turning point. It was not merely a political move but a statement—a declaration on behalf of the ‘Awam,’ the common people. This party aimed to represent the masses, distancing itself from the elitist ‘Khawaja-Gaja’ leadership of the original Muslim League.
However, the political terrain of East Pakistan was not immune to ideological shifts. As the Awami Muslim League matured, it found itself increasingly influenced by leftist tendencies. Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani, a towering figure with socialist inclinations, took charge, maintaining an outer appearance of Islamic ideological allegiance while realigning the party’s internal direction. In time, the word "Muslim" was quietly dropped, giving birth to the Awami League—a rebranding that reflected a deeper ideological and structural transformation.
By the early 1950s, tensions between East and West had reached a boiling point. The language movement of 1952, fueled by the West’s refusal to recognize Bengali as a state language, struck a fatal blow to the Muslim League’s authority in the east. The party that had once stood unchallenged met its political demise in the 1954 elections, effectively sealing its fate in East Pakistan. Meanwhile, the Awami League continued to gain momentum, evolving into a formidable voice for the oppressed and overlooked masses of East Pakistan.
By the 1970 general elections—the only nationwide vote in a united Pakistan—the growing divide between the two wings of the country had become irrevocable. The Awami League, under Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s leadership, secured a landslide victory in the east. That electoral verdict sounded the psychological death knell of Pakistan’s unity. The refusal of the West Pakistani establishment to honor the democratic mandate led to widespread violence, culminating in a brutal liberation war. Through immense sacrifice and with India’s direct support, Bangladesh emerged as an independent state in 1971—led by the Awami League.
But history is rarely linear. Political glory is seldom everlasting. As post-independence euphoria faded, the contradictions within the Awami League's character became glaring. While the party had championed democracy during Pakistan’s oppressive regime, its post-liberation conduct told a different story. The party that had once been a symbol of collective struggle began to exhibit unmistakably authoritarian traits.
Many believe that the transition from liberation to governance demanded a national government representing all factions involved in the fight for independence. Maulana Bhashani and other senior leaders advocated for such inclusivity. Yet, the Awami League, intoxicated by its newfound dominance, showed little tolerance for dissent. The 1973 elections were marred by widespread allegations of fraud, foreshadowing what would later become a recurring theme in Bangladesh’s electoral history.
What followed was a steady erosion of democratic norms. The Awami League’s slogan of “Ek neta, ek desh” (one leader, one country) was not merely rhetorical—it became institutional policy. Under Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s stewardship, the political system morphed into BAKSAL (Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League), a one-party regime where power was centralized to an alarming degree. Nepotism replaced meritocracy. Sheikh Mujib’s relatives occupied critical positions across party and state apparatuses. His nephew Sheikh Moni led the Jubo League, another nephew, Shahidul Islam, headed the student wing, and his brother-in-law controlled the peasant wing. These appointments were not coincidences; they were symptoms of a creeping dynastic monarchy—a “Sheikhtantra.”
Rumors circulated of plans to fast-track Sheikh Jamal, Mujib’s son, to the post of Army Chief, reinforcing fears of a hereditary regime. Critics, especially those aware of European fascist histories, began drawing parallels between the Awami League’s internal structure and that of authoritarian regimes like Hitler’s Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy. Both of those leaders, it is worth noting, had also risen through democratic openings—only to suffocate democracy after seizing power.
By now, the Awami League’s transition from a democratic force to an authoritarian entity was complete. Leaders who once helped shape the party’s direction—Tajuddin Ahmad, Abdus Salam, Amena Begum, and Ataur Rahman Khan—were sidelined or expelled. Suhrawardy’s legacy was abandoned, and even Maulana Bhashani’s appeals for unity were discarded. The very movement that had once galvanized the masses was now becoming a source of fear.
In the following decades, the Awami League experienced cyclical rises and falls. After the 1975 assassination of Mujib and the collapse of BAKSAL, the party splintered into factions: Malek Awami League, Mizan Awami League, Dewan Farid Gazi Awami League, among others. Yet it never truly vanished. When the League returned to power in 1996, it was not through a groundswell of popular support, but via political bargaining, strategic alliances, and the exploitation of national divisions.
The 2008 election brought the Awami League back to power with a renewed majority. However, the next 15 years would mark a dark chapter in Bangladesh’s democratic evolution. The elections of 2014, 2018, and 2024 were condemned for their lack of transparency. The 2014 election was essentially voterless; in 2018, ballots were allegedly cast the night before; and in 2024, the Awami League ran what many described as a "dummy" election to feign democratic legitimacy. These weren’t mere irregularities—they were deliberate strategies to consolidate power.
The culmination of this long trajectory came in July 2024, when a mass uprising, centered in Shahbagh, erupted against the Awami League’s increasingly repressive rule. Fueled by years of disenfranchisement, violence, and autocratic governance, the people demanded accountability. The uprising resulted in the banning of the Awami League, a political earthquake in a country where the party had long dominated the narrative of independence.
But the ban was not as decisive as it appeared. The interim government, responding to immense public pressure, suspended the party’s activities pending prosecution under an amended International Crimes Tribunal Act. Yet observers noted the hesitation in execution—perhaps a sign of lingering influence within the state apparatus. Former President Abdul Hamid’s quiet departure and Selina Hayat Ivy’s continued hold on power reflect the embedded presence of the Awami League’s shadow, even after its political fall.
Today, as Bangladesh navigates an uncertain political landscape, questions linger. Can a party that has ruled through fear rebrand itself under a new identity, just as it did post-1975? Will the people allow history to repeat itself? Or has the tide of democratic consciousness finally drowned out the voices of authoritarianism?
The Awami League’s history is a cautionary tale. Once a force of liberation, it gradually morphed into a fortress of suppression. The very mechanisms it used to rise—elections, slogans, nationalism—became tools for its unchallenged rule. In the end, it became evident: the party did not survive on ideals, but on the power it wielded. And once that power was stripped away, its foundation crumbled.
Looking forward, many believe that even 42 years might not be enough for the Awami League to regain the people’s trust, if it ever can. Just as the Muslim League is now a relic in Pakistan, the Awami League may become a footnote in Bangladesh’s political history—searchable only through archives and memories.
Dr. Nayeem Taj... |
