International experience holds lessons for the interim government to deliver on the change demanded.
Family members of a relative of an enforced disappearance allegedly committed by government agencies during the years of Hasina rule (Zabed Hasnain Chowdhury/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Published 16 Aug 2024
LOWY INSTITUTE
The pledge by Bangladesh’s Chief of Army Staff General Waker-uz-Zaman to hold “a trial for every killing” was an unrealistic commitment when delivering a national address after former prime minister Sheikh Hasina fled the country. Hundreds have been killed in protests that roiled Bangladesh over recent weeks. And rights violations have been committed by multiple actors.
Nonetheless, some form of justice and accountability for the top brass, especially those who ordered brutal crackdowns on the demonstrators, will be important to end a culture of impunity in the country and re-establish the rule of law.
There appears to be a consensus that political and institutional reforms are necessary to transform the country’s deeply flawed, politicised and corrupt structures and institutions. The Hasina government had systematically consolidated power by selecting loyalists for positions of power in the bureaucracy, judiciary, universities and other key institutions. Mohamed Yunus, the Nobel-prize winning economist now appointed as interim leader in the wake of Hasina’s ousting, was also the target of the highly politicised judiciary.
The end of a major turmoil following the exit of an authoritarian leader does not organically bring sustainable and long-term peace.
Many positive changes are already taking place following the set-up of the caretaker government, such as the resignation of the chief justice of the Supreme Court, the governor of the central bank and the leaders of some universities. The Bangladesh Financial Intelligence Unit has also instructed the country’s banks to freeze all accounts of former ministers and their family members. Calls have also been made to abolish the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), which has a history of committing extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances and instead “using those resources for a comprehensive police reform effort”.
But the end of a major turmoil following the exit of an authoritarian leader does not organically bring sustainable and long-term peace. There is not only a risk of a relapse of violence but also the possibility of traditional forces seeking to return to power and preventing meaningful change. Bangladesh has a history of interim governments taking charge during periods of political turmoil. Although the public initially welcomed the latest move, abuses by security forces soon emerged.
While reforms to patronage and corrupt patterns and structures bring hope that a new order might be ushered in for a country that is on a path to dependency, reversing course is challenging. Sufficient attention should be given to transitional justice interventions.
Bangladesh has been down the road before of seeking restitution with flawed and politicised instruments. In 2010, the International Crimes Tribunal investigated and prosecuted those who committed war crimes during the Liberation War in 1971. Yet the process was bedeviled by claims of bias, poor transparency and lack of fairness, and that it did not give sufficient time to defence lawyers to prepare their cases.
To prevent a similar outcome, Dhaka could investigate the latest unrest by drawing on international lessons. It could establish a hybrid tribunal involving international and local judges and other legal specialists, similar to those set up in Kosovo, Timor-Leste, Cambodia and Sierra Leone.
These examples alone are not the answer. The normative approach to transitional justice, that stems from international law and criminal justice discourse, has a predisposition to invoke default models without considering the local context and perspectives. Instead, a truth and reconciliation commission could provide a platform for ethnic reconciliation and confessions that are sensitive to local realities and considerations. It could also help to find out about missing people.
The TRC of South Africa, despite its limitations, centred on a non-judicial, restorative and forgiveness-based approach that encouraged healing through truth-telling to nurture an inclusive and unified society. Such an approach was able to recognise the complex experience in which wrongdoing and brutality was committed by all groups. Such an acknowledgement in Bangladesh would be instrumental in helping acceptance of the past to prevent the recurrence of such violence.
There are concerns that other political actors might hijack this moment to take control of the state machinery and key institutions, and prevent the interim government from changing the system. It’s heartening to see that the caretaker government is not slowing down the momentum after Hasina’s exit, a phenomenon that has occurred in many post-uprising societies that ultimately returned to something resembling the old order. There is a near consensus that Yunus is the right candidate to lead the interim government, given his domestic and international reputation and grassroots experience.
The youth have set out a long-term vision of good governance, the rule of law, democracy and a merit-based country by taking the lead. They are carrying out the responsibilities of security personnel, traffic police, cleaning up cities, and even protecting temples and churches. But the establishment of a vehicle for transitional justice will also be essential.
The pledge by Bangladesh’s Chief of Army Staff General Waker-uz-Zaman to hold “a trial for every killing” was an unrealistic commitment when delivering a national address after former prime minister Sheikh Hasina fled the country. Hundreds have been killed in protests that roiled Bangladesh over recent weeks. And rights violations have been committed by multiple actors.
Nonetheless, some form of justice and accountability for the top brass, especially those who ordered brutal crackdowns on the demonstrators, will be important to end a culture of impunity in the country and re-establish the rule of law.
There appears to be a consensus that political and institutional reforms are necessary to transform the country’s deeply flawed, politicised and corrupt structures and institutions. The Hasina government had systematically consolidated power by selecting loyalists for positions of power in the bureaucracy, judiciary, universities and other key institutions. Mohamed Yunus, the Nobel-prize winning economist now appointed as interim leader in the wake of Hasina’s ousting, was also the target of the highly politicised judiciary.
The end of a major turmoil following the exit of an authoritarian leader does not organically bring sustainable and long-term peace.
Many positive changes are already taking place following the set-up of the caretaker government, such as the resignation of the chief justice of the Supreme Court, the governor of the central bank and the leaders of some universities. The Bangladesh Financial Intelligence Unit has also instructed the country’s banks to freeze all accounts of former ministers and their family members. Calls have also been made to abolish the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), which has a history of committing extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances and instead “using those resources for a comprehensive police reform effort”.
But the end of a major turmoil following the exit of an authoritarian leader does not organically bring sustainable and long-term peace. There is not only a risk of a relapse of violence but also the possibility of traditional forces seeking to return to power and preventing meaningful change. Bangladesh has a history of interim governments taking charge during periods of political turmoil. Although the public initially welcomed the latest move, abuses by security forces soon emerged.
While reforms to patronage and corrupt patterns and structures bring hope that a new order might be ushered in for a country that is on a path to dependency, reversing course is challenging. Sufficient attention should be given to transitional justice interventions.
Bangladesh has been down the road before of seeking restitution with flawed and politicised instruments. In 2010, the International Crimes Tribunal investigated and prosecuted those who committed war crimes during the Liberation War in 1971. Yet the process was bedeviled by claims of bias, poor transparency and lack of fairness, and that it did not give sufficient time to defence lawyers to prepare their cases.
To prevent a similar outcome, Dhaka could investigate the latest unrest by drawing on international lessons. It could establish a hybrid tribunal involving international and local judges and other legal specialists, similar to those set up in Kosovo, Timor-Leste, Cambodia and Sierra Leone.
These examples alone are not the answer. The normative approach to transitional justice, that stems from international law and criminal justice discourse, has a predisposition to invoke default models without considering the local context and perspectives. Instead, a truth and reconciliation commission could provide a platform for ethnic reconciliation and confessions that are sensitive to local realities and considerations. It could also help to find out about missing people.
The TRC of South Africa, despite its limitations, centred on a non-judicial, restorative and forgiveness-based approach that encouraged healing through truth-telling to nurture an inclusive and unified society. Such an approach was able to recognise the complex experience in which wrongdoing and brutality was committed by all groups. Such an acknowledgement in Bangladesh would be instrumental in helping acceptance of the past to prevent the recurrence of such violence.
There are concerns that other political actors might hijack this moment to take control of the state machinery and key institutions, and prevent the interim government from changing the system. It’s heartening to see that the caretaker government is not slowing down the momentum after Hasina’s exit, a phenomenon that has occurred in many post-uprising societies that ultimately returned to something resembling the old order. There is a near consensus that Yunus is the right candidate to lead the interim government, given his domestic and international reputation and grassroots experience.
The youth have set out a long-term vision of good governance, the rule of law, democracy and a merit-based country by taking the lead. They are carrying out the responsibilities of security personnel, traffic police, cleaning up cities, and even protecting temples and churches. But the establishment of a vehicle for transitional justice will also be essential.
No comments:
Post a Comment