Not easy to find a Yunus

SANJAYA BARU

DEMOCRATIC institutions ensure that a State renews its legitimacy within civil society. When those who take control of the State subvert and delegitimize the institutions of democracy, this renewal ceases to happen. Regular and transparent elections to the legislature, that represents civil society, enable the State to renew legitimacy through popular mandate. When this fails, ceases or is subverted, then a revolution is the only means by which civil society regains control of the State.

This is precisely what is happening in Bangladesh. The government of Sheikh Hasina lost its legitimacy because of the manner in which it chose to govern and sought to renew its mandate. A democratically elected government had subverted the institutions of democratic governance to the point that democracy itself was under threat. The State in Bangladesh could have sustained itself through increasingly authoritarian, if populist, governance. That story has played itself out in many countries from Argentina to Russia.

In the end, so bankrupt had Hasina’s democratically elected regime become that an upsurge of youth ensured its exit. What is interesting about Bangladesh is that this body of youth, that had spontaneously come together and battled for change, was able to find a leader who had independently secured the support of civil society through his life and work. The popularity and social standing of Muhammad Yunus had nothing to do with the movement of the youth. The two came together the day Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina escaped to exile.

Bangladesh is fortunate to have had Mr Yunus. What could have happened without a Yunus around is what we saw in Sri Lanka in 2022. A popular uprising forced President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa to eventually step down. However, the Parliament remained in place and soon a new government was formed under the leadership of Ranil Wikremesinghe. An entrenched political elite ensured regime continuity by merely replacing individuals. In Bangladesh, the youth wanted more. They sought real regime change.

As events unfolded in Dhaka, many analysts had forecast a familiar scenario. A military takeover. In the event, Bangladesh witnessed a civil society takeover. In a remarkable turn of events a group of respected and highly qualified citizens came together to form a government under the leadership of Mr Yunus. His individual social and global standing, as a Nobel Peace Prize, winning social activist who has empowered millions of the poor, has for the moment restored a semblance of stability.

Regime change can be noisy, dirty and bloody. Hence, and understandably, there have been reprehensible and regrettable events ranging from attacks on religious minorities to the physical hammering of the statue of Banga Bandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. These are tragic events. They have tarnished what was essentially a youth revolt against repression and injustice. They will cast a dark shadow on what was essentially a movement for freedom and self-respect. But such is the nature of any revolt. Revolution is not a dinner party, said Mao Zedong famously.

It remains to be seen in which direction Bangladesh will move. Will communal forces overwhelm a State in disarray? Will Big Power rivalry impact the future course of events? Can the interim government put Bangladesh back on the course it was set barely a decade ago, as a bright spot in South Asia?

Sri Lanka’s precedent suggests that while political stability can be restored, a corrupt elite who ran the country down may yet return to once again dominate the institutions of the State. Restoring democracy, after an authoritarian regime has been dislodged, requires enormous patience and wisdom on the part of civil society leaders. South Africa was fortunate to have had a Nelson Mandela around at the right time, just as Bangladesh is fortunate to have Yunus around. Of course, we have seen what has since happened in South Africa after the memory of Mandela has receded.

Whatever the future holds for Bangladesh, the representatives of civil society, who are now functionaries of the State, can play a historic role by revitalizing the social and political foundations of Bangladesh that attracted global attention not long ago. Mandela, like Mahatma Gandhi, eschewed power and facilitated the transfer of power. Yunus too could play such a facilitating role, ensuring that a modern, secular and forward-looking leadership is once again empowered.

For its part, the political leadership in India can play a significant role by supporting such a transition in Bangladesh rather than use the divisions within that country to further stoke divisions within ours. In the long term India has the obligation and the opportunity to empower plural and secular democracies all across South Asia. If India chooses to secure short-term gains by exploiting divisions within the region it will pull the entire region down.

One of Muhammad Yunus’ first statements after the regime implosion in Dhaka was to seek the revival of SAARC — the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. There was a time in the early 2000s when I too joined the ranks of SAARC sceptics. However, over the years I have realized that our sub-continent requires an institution that facilitates regional cooperation and trust-building. Over the past decade New Delhi turned its back on SAARC and has tried hard to breathe life into BIMSTEC  — the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation. While BIMSTEC has been viewed as a bridge to ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations), it has not been able to enthuse its membership in the manner SAARC once did. Muhammad Yunus today has the stature across the region that could help revitalize SAARC. He should do that.