The current government in Bangladesh is weaponizing the judiciary to suppress the Awami League: Mohammad A. Arafat, former minister

Interview/ Mohammad A. Arafat, Awami League leader and former minister

Many leaders of the Awami League have still not come to terms with how they were thrown out of power by mass protests in July last year. Mohammad A. Arafat, who was Sheikh Hasina’s information minister, says both the students and the government wanted the same thing. “It was a legitimate emotional demand for the youngsters to get fair treatment,” he says. “But as the protests got some traction, extremist groups infiltrated and started creating chaos and violence.”

Arafat says his party has been deliberately excluded from the political landscape by the current government. “The government has shown clear hostility towards us, weaponising the judiciary to suppress the Awami League,” he says. Excerpts from an interview:

Q/ There are concerns about Awami League’s position during the interim government’s tenure. Reforms are being discussed. Are you involved in the process?

A/ The Awami League has not been contacted. We have been deliberately excluded. In fact, the government under Professor Muhammad Yunus has shown clear hostility towards us, weaponising the judiciary to suppress the Awami League. Homes and offices of Awami League leaders and activists are being destroyed and false charges pressed against them.

Let alone inviting us to participate, they have actively worked against us. Moreover, we do not believe meaningful reforms can be carried out by an unelected government without a public mandate. While civil society, NGOs and think tanks play important roles in shaping opinions, they should not be steering national reforms, as it undermines the very essence of democracy.

Reforms must be led by those elected by the people. It is a gradual, ongoing process―you can’t expect overnight changes. Look at other democracies, like India; progress happens through ups and downs, over time.

Q/ Considering the clear timeline―elections between December and June―how challenging is it for your party to decide whether to participate or not?

A/ Every move made by this government is aimed at excluding the Awami League, not just from elections but from the political landscape itself. We have no expectations from an unelected, unconstitutional government. For elections to be free, fair, and inclusive, a different government is needed, and that is what we are working towards.

Our constitution provides for a caretaker government. While I have personally been opposed to the caretaker system―believing elections should be held under an elected, political government―we have not yet achieved that standard. Given the absence of a legitimate political government today, a caretaker government remains the best available option. Such a government would neutralise the administration, which is crucial because, currently, the BNP’s influence is entrenched across key institutions. At every administrative level, Awami League leaders face fabricated charges that cripple their ability to campaign. Meanwhile, cases against BNP leaders are being dismissed, creating an uneven playing field. This is exactly what the BNP wants―quick election under conditions unfavourable to the Awami League, paving an easy return to power.

However, if a neutral government is installed, the administration is balanced, and the judiciary functions independently, we are ready to participate in elections, whether in December, January or later.

Q/ Have you had consultations with other political parties to advance this demand?

A/ No formal consultations have been there yet. We believe that both national and international pressure will be critical. Everyone―inside or outside Bangladesh― wants a free, fair and inclusive election. That cannot happen under the current setup.

Q/ There are concerns raised by the Yunus administration about comments by Sheikh Hasina from India.

A/ This is where I see the hypocrisy of the interim government whose members used to be part of the civil society and talked about freedom of speech. Now, all of a sudden, they have changed their terminology. Isn’t it Sheikh Hasina’s right to free speech? Now they are interpreting that as provocation? What is the fine line between provocation and free speech?

She is a political leader. She is the leader of the biggest and oldest political party in the country. Of course, she will be speaking to her people. If her party activists are systematically attacked and hurt, false charges are framed against them and they are put in jail, she would just say ‘resist’. Resistance, like Mandela said it. Like Mahatma Gandhi said it. Martin Luther King said it. Sheikh Hasina is calling for resistance. And that is provocation for them.

Q/ Do you think Bangladesh will plunge into another round of protests if elections are not held on time?

A/ When the Awami League was in power, it was a political government; it was the biggest and the oldest party, and it was connected to the grassroots. There was representation of people through the Awami League in the government. So, it was democracy. It may have had its limitations. There might have been some debate or controversy about elections. But, as a whole, that was a democratic system.

But now, it is a bunch of people coming from the civil society, who used to run NGOs, who are in power. As politicians, we had to go door-to-door and remain connected with people at the grassroots level all the time. But these people who are in the government now are totally disconnected from the people because they are not politicians. So, there is no democracy in Bangladesh after August 5. Therefore, people will definitely rise. And we’ll bring back democracy in Bangladesh. And I see that happening very soon.

Q/ And why do you think the July uprising saw whole lot of political parties, civil society, students and people from all walks of life coming out in protests?

A/ Initially, it was a demand for abolishing the quota system. There was also a bit of miscommunication which we are still analysing. It is our government that abolished the quota in 2018. At that time, there was a small group of people who were in favour of quota and they filed a petition in the high court. The high court heard their argument for two years, and eventually cancelled the circular issued by our government abolishing the quota. Therefore, the quota came back automatically. Our government’s attorney general’s office quickly went to the appellate division and challenged that cancellation order. The students also wanted the same thing. They did not want the quota to come back. So, our position and their position were the same.

As information minister, I kept on saying that we are fighting for the same cause in court. But they wanted to carry on with their protests. We were liberal about it and ensured that the police allowed them to protest inside the campus. But then they wanted to go out of the campus and spread around different places. Soon, political actors started joining in. I think it was a legitimate emotional demand for the youngsters to get fair treatment. There should be no discrimination when it comes to jobs, and we also supported it. But as the protests got some traction, extremist groups infiltrated into the protests and started creating chaos and violence.