The Foregoing Political Process Leading to a New Settlement and Order

০৯ ই সেপ্টেম্বর, ২০২৫ সকাল ১০:৪৬

The Foregoing Political Process Leading to a New Settlement and Order

I. Introduction
The determinants shaping Bangladesh's political order can be synthesized into a structured analysis. These determinants are not isolated; they are deeply interconnected, each influencing and reinforcing the others in a complex web that has defined the nation's trajectory since 1971.
The political order of Bangladesh has been shaped by a set of core determinants, with their influence and prominence shifting across different eras. The following timeline visualizes the relative dominance of these key factors over time:
Here is an analysis of the key determinants and how they have shaped the political order, in compliance with the established text.

II. The Core Determinants Shaping Bangladesh's Political Order
Based on the historical account, the primary determinants are:
1. Assassinations, Coups, and Military Intervention: The most direct and violent shaper of the political order.
2. The Role of the Military as a Political Institution: Evolving from a national institution to the ultimate arbiter of power.
3. Ideological Reformation: The shift from secular Bengali nationalism to religious-infused Bangladeshi nationalism.
4. Dynastic Politics and Personalistic Rule: The concentration of power within two political families and their parties.
5. Deep Political Polarization: The existential, zero-sum nature of political competition.
6. Economic Patronage and Clientelism: The use of state resources to maintain power and reward loyalists.

III. How These Determinants Have Shaped the Political Order Since Independence
The influence of these determinants can be traced through distinct phases of Bangladesh's history.

Phase 1: The Founding Order (1971-1975)
• Determinants in Play: The initial political order was shaped by the charismatic authority of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the founding ideology of secularism, socialism, and Bengali nationalism.
• How They Shaped Order: This vision was enshrined in the 1972 constitution. However, the concentration of power in one leader and the establishment of a one-party state (BAKSAL) in 1975 weakened institutions and created resentment. This institutional fragility made the system vulnerable to the first determinant—military intervention.

Phase 2: The Destruction of the Founding Order (1975-1981)
• Determinants in Play: Assassination and Military Coups.
• How They Shaped Order: The events of 1975-1977 were a catastrophic reset. They:
o Physically eliminated the top leadership of the liberation movement.
o Shattered the constitutional order and established military rule by force.
o Brought the military as an institution directly into the heart of politics, a role it has never fully relinquished.
o Created the conditions for ideological reformation under Ziaur Rahman, who began the process of moving away from secularism and socialism to consolidate his own power base.

Phase 3: Institutionalizing the New Order (1980s)
• Determinants in Play: The Role of the Military and Ideological Reformation.
• How They Shaped Order: The decade was defined by the rule of General Ershad, who continued and deepened the trends started by Zia.
o The Military solidified its role as the country's most powerful political institution. The state was run by a military-bureaucratic oligarchy.
o Ideological reformation was completed. Ershad made Islam the state religion, finalizing the departure from the 1972 secular principle. This was a strategic move to gain legitimacy and co-opt religious conservative forces.
o This period also saw the entrenchment of economic patronage, as the regime used state resources to create a class of business elites loyal to it.

Phase 4: The Dysfunctional Democratic Order (1991-2006)
• Determinants in Play: Dynastic Politics, Deep Polarization, and Competitive Clientelism.
• How They Shaped Order: The restoration of democracy in 1991 took place within the framework shaped by the 1975 coup.
o The dynastic rivalry between Sheikh Hasina (AL) and Khaleda Zia (BNP) became the central axis of politics. Their personal animosity, rooted in the assassinations of 1975, fueled deep polarization.
o Politics became a zero-sum game where the opposition's role was not to compete but to overthrow the government through hartals (strikes) and boycotts.
o Both parties engaged in competitive clientelism, using state resources to reward their party members and business allies when in power. This turned elections into a high-stakes battle for control of the state's treasury, further deepening polarization.
o Crucially, the military remained the "kingmaker" in the background. During political crises, it was the military leadership that often negotiated compromises between the two women leaders, underscoring its ultimate veto power.

Phase 5: The Contemporary Order (2007-Present)
• Determinants in Play: All determinants are active, with one faction achieving dominance.
• How They Shaped Order: After a military-backed caretaker government in 2007-08, the Awami League returned to power and has since consolidated its authority.
o The ideological battle is sharper than ever, with the AL championing a return to the secular "spirit of 1971" and the BNP upholding Zia's "Bangladeshi nationalism."
o Dynastic politics remains central.
o The military's role has evolved into a powerful stakeholder within a dominant-party system. Its influence is maintained through business ventures and its status as a guarantor of stability, and it is firmly aligned with the current government.
o The state has become increasingly centralized, and political polarization is institutionalized, with the political arena heavily tilted in favor of the incumbent.

IV. Political Settlement-Political Order Dynamics in Bangladesh: A Dialectical Co-evolution
The political history of Bangladesh is a testament to the cyclical, dialectical relationship between underlying political settlements and the visible political orders they produce. Each settlement establishes an order, which in turn legitimizes that settlement until its internal contradictions trigger a crisis, forcing a renegotiation of power and the eventual creation of a new order.

Period 1 (1971–1975): Liberation Settlement → Socialist-Secular Order
• The Settlement: A charismatic-populist bargain among a secular, nationalist elite coalition led by the Awami League (AL), liberation war commanders, and sympathetic bureaucrats. This settlement was founded on the ideology of Bengali secular nationalism and the legitimacy of the liberation struggle.
• The Political Order It Produced: This bargain was codified into a political order characterized by a socialist economic policy (nationalization), a centralized state apparatus, and the creation of a one-party system (BAKSAL). However, the order revealed the settlement's weaknesses: weak state capacity due to war devastation, economic distress, and the exclusion of alternative elites, leading to intense polarization.

• The Dialectical Breakdown: The functioning of this order—specifically its economic failures and authoritarian turn—delegitimized the founding settlement. The contradictions culminated in a crisis resolved by a violent political process: the August 1975 military coup and assassinations, which shattered the original settlement and its order entirely.

Period 2 (1975–1990): Military-Authoritarian Settlement → Militarized-Patronage Order
• The New Settlement: The post-coup power vacuum was filled by a new elite bargain between the military leadership, the civil bureaucracy, and rising business elites. To secure legitimacy, this coalition integrated previously banned religious forces, initiating an ideological shift away from secularism.
• The Political Order It Produced: This settlement was institutionalized as an authoritarian political order defined by martial law, economic liberalization, the formation of the BNP as a political vehicle, and the use of state patronage to build a loyal business class. The order delivered greater macro-stability and growth.
• The Dialectical Breakdown: The order’s inherent authoritarianism and concentrated patronage generated a legitimacy deficit. The political process of breakdown was driven by mass mobilization (students, civil society) against military rule, culminating in the 1990 popular uprising that forced the settlement’s collapse.

Period 3 (1991–2006): Competitive-Clientelist Settlement → Turbulent Democratic Order
• The New Settlement: The post-Ershad bargain was a fragile understanding between the two dynastic parties (AL and BNP) to alternate power, underpinned by a neutral Caretaker Government mechanism. The military remained a background arbiter, while business elites played both sides.
• The Political Order It Produced: This settlement produced a procedural democratic order with regular elections and peaceful transfers of power. However, the winner-takes-all nature of the order meant that whichever party won used state institutions (judiciary, administration) to reward allies and punish opponents, deepening clientelism and polarization.
• The Dialectical Breakdown: The order’s central mechanism—the Caretaker Government—became the subject of intense dispute, exposing the settlement's lack of genuine consensus. The resulting 2006-2008 political crisis and deadlock was the political process that revealed the settlement was no longer viable, requiring military-backed intervention to force a renegotiation.

Period 4 (2009–2024): Dominant-Party Settlement → Securitized Development Order
• The New Settlement: The post-2007 realignment resulted in a new, robust bargain centered on the Awami League’s dominance, with the military and business oligarchs as key stakeholders. The opposition (BNP) was systematically marginalized and excluded from the core benefits of the state.
• The Political Order It Produced: This settlement was codified into a political order characterized by high-capacity, securitized governance. It delivered significant economic growth and infrastructure development, creating performance-based legitimacy. Simultaneously, it involved the abolition of the Caretaker system, the erosion of democratic institutions, and the use of legal and administrative tools to maintain dominance.
• The Dialectical Breakdown: The order’s contradictions—systemic inequality, youth unemployment, and extreme political exclusion—festered beneath the surface of economic success. The political process of breakdown erupted in 2024 through nationwide student-led protests against quota reforms, which broadened into a wider delegitimation of the settlement, forcing a governmental crisis and transition.

Period 5 (2024–Present): Transitional Settlement → Contested New Order
• The Emergent Settlement: The current phase represents an attempted renegotiation of the elite bargain. An interim government seeks to incorporate civil society leaders and address popular grievances, while traditional powerful groups (military, business elites) reassess their positions.
• The Political Order It May Produce: The characteristics of a new order remain undefined and hotly contested. The outcome hinges on whether the political process can forge a settlement that is broad enough to be stable yet institutionalized enough to be effective.
• The Key Dialectical Question: The central challenge for Bangladesh remains breaking its cyclical pattern. This requires building a political order whose institutions can enforce general rules and mediate conflict impartially, rather than serving as instruments for a narrow elite bargain. The durability of any new settlement will depend on its ability to legitimize itself through more than just patronage or performance, achieving a dynamic balance between state power and societal accountability.

V. The Foregoing Political Process Leading to a New Settlement and Order
The process of a new settlement culminating in a new order is not a single event but a protracted period of crisis, conflict, and realignment. Bangladesh's history shows a clear pattern:
1. Crisis of the Old Order: The existing political order becomes dysfunctional, leading to widespread instability, violence, or economic stagnation. This crisis exposes the fact that the old settlement is broken; the powerful groups can no longer govern effectively under the old rules.

* Trigger: August 1975 assassinations (crisis of Mujib's order); 1980s mass protests (crisis of Ershad's order); 2006 street violence and political deadlock (crisis of the competitive clientelist order).
2. Realignment of Powerful Groups: During the crisis, the key powerful groups—especially the military—reassess their interests and form new coalitions. This is a period of intense behind-the-scenes bargaining and shifting allegiances.

* Process: In 1975, the military faction that killed Mujib forged an alliance with disgruntled AL leaders and the civil bureaucracy. Post-2007, a significant section of the military and business elites threw their weight behind the Awami League, seeing it as a force for greater stability and economic growth.
3. Emergence of a New Settlement: A new informal agreement is reached among the realigned powerful groups on a new set of rules. This new settlement defines who is included, who is excluded, and how power and resources will be distributed.

* Outcome: The post-2008 settlement can be described as a "dominant party" settlement where the Awami League became the central pole of politics, with the military and business elites as key stakeholders within this system, and the BNP and other opponents largely excluded.
4. Institutionalization of a New Order: The new settlement is then codified into a new political order. The formal rules are changed to reflect and protect the new balance of power.

* Codification: The current order involves:
* The abolition of the neutral Caretaker Government system (which had become a threat to the new settlement).
* A massive development agenda that rewards loyal business elites and creates a performance-based legitimacy.
* A stronger, more securitized state that protects the regime.
* The use of state institutions to maintain the dominance of the ruling party.
* A foreign policy re-alignment that fits the new domestic power structure.

VI. Conclusion: A Cyclical and Evolutionary Process
In Bangladesh, the interaction between political settlement and political order is a cycle of creation, stability, crisis, and re-creation. The country has moved through several distinct settlements:
1. Charismatic-Populist Settlement (1972-75) → Socialist-Secular Order
2. Military-Authoritarian Settlement (1975-90) → Militarized-Patronage Order
3. Competitive Clientelist Settlement (1991-2006) → Turbulent Democratic Order
4. Dominant-Party Settlement (2008-Present) → Securitized Development Order

Each transition was triggered by the violent failure of the previous order to manage its internal contradictions. The current political order, characterized by the Awami League's hegemony, is the institutional expression of the latest political settlement among the military, economic elites, and the ruling party. Its stability depends on its ability to continuously deliver benefits to its core coalition and manage the exclusion of rival groups, a dynamic that itself contains the seeds of future potential crises.

০ টি +০/-০