Just as our social life and cultural heritage have been molded by a continuous stream, so too our political practice and organizational behavior follow a distinct tradition. Whenever attempts are made to step outside of that stream, we stumble — indeed, that has always been the case. We have adopted democratic principles and ideals, yet we have never truly managed to align them with Western democracy, nor does there seem to be reason for such hope. That is why, while Western-style parties thrive on democratic practice within their structures, we have never been able to do the same. British or American forms of democracy are absent from our South and Southeast Asian context.

Take, for example, the world’s largest democracy, India: their political culture has little resemblance to British or American systems. In Britain or America, dynastic politics has little currency. To assume national leadership there, one must demonstrate numerous personal qualifications. But in our country, inheritance politics is alive and vibrant. We have never been able to escape the far?reaching grip of inheritance politics, nor have attempts at escape succeeded. Therefore, in the continuity of our history, the political predominance that has existed must be acknowledged, and our political path must follow that current.

Within our subcontinent, political dynasties abound. In India, there are the Gandhis; in Pakistan, the Bhuttos; in Bangladesh, the families of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Shaheed President Ziaur Rahman, and Pollibandhu Hussain Mohammad Ershad; in Myanmar, the family of Aung San. For as long as these families have carried inheritance politics, their political journey has faced no true disruptions. Inheritance has taken shape through wives, sons, or daughters. Beyond them, just as property does not pass to outsiders, neither does leadership in politics. If it does, collapse follows. Survival depends on a natural heir.

This truth is clear in the Jatiyo Party as well. When Pollibandhu Ershad’s dearly cherished Jatiyo Party saw his brother GM Quader attempt to enthrone himself as supreme ruler, disaster followed. The political organization that Hussain Muhammad Ershad had built with his life suffered grievously. To understand this better, one must glance backward at the history of inheritance politics.

Let us begin with Pakistan. In the 1970 election, the Bhutto family took its place within national politics. After Zulfikar Ali Bhutto came his daughter Benazir Bhutto. Following Benazir’s assassination, her husband inherited the mantle. Today, their son holds the legacy of his grandfather’s party, keeping the Pakistan People’s Party alive. In short, Bhutto’s party has never gone beyond the Bhutto family.

Consider also, had Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s family possessed a suitable heir after Pakistan’s birth, perhaps his dynasty would have continued in power. But since his sister, Fatima Jinnah, could not become the legitimate inheritor, the Jinnah family was ultimately erased from politics.

India tells a different story. After independence, the Nehru family dominated politics for generations, guiding both party and government. From Nehru to Indira Gandhi, from Indira to Rajiv, the Congress Party was bound by their lineage. Even today, Rajiv’s widow Sonia Gandhi and their son Rahul Gandhi carry forward that inheritance. By contrast, Rajiv’s sister-in-law, Maneka Gandhi, received no share of the Congress inheritance and was marginalized.

The fate of accomplished leaders who sought to rise outside the family line tells its own tale. A few sought to strip Congress of dynastic rule by excluding Indira Gandhi. That Congress remained as the original Congress, holding its historic charkha emblem. With that emblem, Jawaharlal Nehru became prime minister. Yet Indira Gandhi broke away, forming her own Congress. Unable to take the emblem, she relied on family inheritance, and with that alone she regained power. Even today, that branch of Congress remains poised for future power.

Let me now turn to Bangladesh. Here too, politics revolves around inheritance: the families of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, President Zia, and later Pollibandhu Ershad. Without the stream of inheritance, the Awami League, BNP, and Jatiyo Party would lose all political existence.

The Awami League was toppled due to authoritarian governance, but that is not its final chapter. The party had faced an even greater tragedy — on August 15, 1975, Bangabandhu and nearly his entire family were brutally killed, leaving only two family members alive. Awami League was formally banned. Yet even then, the party rose again because Mujib’s bloodline still survived. In today’s crisis, by contrast, Bangabandhu’s family is alive and safe. Thus, the present Awami League cannot be equated with the Awami League of the future; to do so would be to miscalculate.

The BNP too, born from the Zia family, has experienced many splits. Still, inheritance politics has held firm. Despite shocks and crises, BNP lives on with strength, because beyond the Zia family, its mass of workers and supporters cannot imagine its existence. Thus, inheritance politics remains irrepressibly present here as well.

The real problem today lies with the Jatiyo Party. A grave disruption has erupted over an illegitimate claim of succession. The politics of the Jatiyo Party could have proceeded in a natural and easy course — had leadership rested with its rightful heir.

When Pollibandhu Ershad was alive but facing death, all assumed his end was near, yet he remained the Chairman of the Jatiyo Party. After his death, his heir was his wife, Begum Rowshan Ershad. Within the party she held the second-highest position — Senior Co-Chairman. According to the constitution of the party, Rowshan Ershad was to become Acting Chairman. But at the very moment she lay overwhelmed in grief, her brother-in-law, G.M. Quader, declared himself Executive Chairman of the party.

Thus, chaos ensued. The Jatiyo Party, the beloved creation that Pollibandhu Ershad had built, was split into three. Now the party’s leaders and activists must recognize where Hussain Muhammad Ershad’s true inheritance lies. In a single sentence: with Begum Rowshan Ershad. For as long as she lives, under her leadership the Jatiyo Party is the authentic Jatiyo Party founded by Ershad. Those who break away from her may form other organizations, but they are not the true Jatiyo Party.

GM Quader has almost erased the name of Pollibandhu Ershad from his group. His faction’s general secretary even wishes to hand the party over to BNP. Meanwhile, Quader himself seems engaged in a mission to have the Jatiyo Party banned. It is heard that the Awami League has entrusted him with a role: to add Jatiya Party to the list of parties banned from politics. The logic is this: if both ruling and opposition parties of the previous government can be shown as banned, then the upcoming election will appear invalid. From there, through movement, restrictions can be reversed. That is why in word and deed GM Quader gives the impression that, if Jatiyo Party is banned, so be it. To him, it does not matter.

Yet we say: just as inheritance politics has guided the two other major parties, so must it guide the Jatiyo Party. Our subcontinent has always been ruled through inheritance — long before the British, under kings, sultans, and the Mughals. Rarely did brothers or uncles succeed to power. History shows: after Nawab Siraj-ud-Daulah was killed, Mir Jafar Ali Khan became Nawab but failed to survive. Then Mir Qasim replaced him, but he too did not last. That continuity has flowed down to us. Awami League, BNP, and Jatiyo Party cannot escape it either.

Thus, the Jatiyo Party too must uphold rightful inheritance politics. While Rowshan Ershad lives, she must remain Chairperson. It was under her leadership that on March 6, 2024, the party’s grand council took place, electing her formally as Chairperson. The Election Commission must, and surely will, recognize her as such.

Yet from self?interested quarters, demands have arisen to ban the Jatiyo Party altogether. In a democratic country, what could be more illogical? What crime has the Jatiyo Party committed to deserve such a fate? The Jatiyo Party has always participated in elections — is that an offense?

This party joined in 1991, 1996, and 2001 polls as well. Its stated principle has always been to participate in every election. Even in the extreme adversity and absence of a level playing field in 1991 and 1996, the Jatiyo Party nonetheless contested. Then why should participation in 2014 and 2018 now be considered wrong?

In 2024, Begum Rowshan Ershad declined to contest, based on her experience of the previous two elections. She refused to proceed with an election lacking all-party inclusion. The entire Jatiyo Party also opposed participation. Only through the unilateral decision of GM Quader did his group contest. That election cannot be shouldered by the Jatiyo Party as a whole. The responsibility lies squarely on him, whose decision handed Awami League the convenience of that election.

By contrast, the Jatiyo Party of Pollibandhu Ershad, under Rowshan Ershad’s leadership, has always been committed to nurturing stable democracy, and to serving the people as well as its leaders, activists, and supporters.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel

The post Jatiyo Party and politics of inheritance in Bangladesh appeared first on BLiTZ.

[Read More]

—–
Source: Weekly Blitz :: Writings