The resignation of former president Mohammed Shahabuddin on July 24 has opened a fresh barrage of criticism about him in the media and social media platforms. Additionally, speculation about his probable successor is still ongoing. Some civil society leaders have openly thrown their weight behind the BNP’s secretary-general, Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir, as the next president of Bangladesh.
The BNP leaders sat to choose their candidate, but they authorised the BNP chief and Prime Minister, Tarique Rahman, to select the presidential candidate. The open discussion about Alamgir’s name reduces his chances because people in politics, in most cases, put a candidate in the public domain to spoil his prospects. This is a common political game in Bangladesh, although I do not write off a clean-image, seasoned politician like Alamgir. A significant number of people suggest in the public sphere that the next president should not be a politician; instead, he or she should be a person with a clean-image.
Mohammed Shahabuddin had a poor public image, no doubt. But he, with the active support of the BNP, handled the political upheaval that followed the ouster of the authoritarian ruler Sheikh Hasina on August 5, 2024. Thankfully, he saved Bangladesh from a constitutional crisis and brought the country back to the democratic path. Should we have a person with a clean-image or a politically mature person as the next president? Answering this question warrants an assessment of the performance of previous clean-image and politician presidents.
The political parties’ basic mistake is that they elect a president with a so-called clean-image on the assumption that such a person is honest and committed. But there is no guarantee that such a person is honest (both in terms of financial issues and intellectual integrity), politically capable, and committed to the causes of the country and its people.
A clean-image is built upon a system that restricts the free press and freedom of expression. For instance, the Bangladesh Armed Forces are generally regarded as clean and patriotic. This perception has been built over the years because the armed forces are almost a no-go area for the media. The media basically work to build their image. They have commendable roles in protecting the country from catastrophes. But as an institution, are the armed forces free from all bad practices? Are they isolated from Bangladeshi society, which is plagued by corruption, injustice, inequality, and other social evils? The armed forces are an integral part of society. They are surely affected by these social phenomena, to some extent.
It is hard to perceive whether a person out of the media spotlight is honest, capable, or committed to the country and its people. If political parties elect an unknown or little-known person as president, the media can hardly inform the people about his honesty and integrity. For example, the BNP elected Prof. Iajuddin Ahmed as president following the resignation of Dr. AQM Badruddoza Chowdhury in 2002. At the time of his election, Prof. Iajuddin Ahmed had a clean-image among the people. But how he performed as president at the time of the national crisis in 2006–07 is a dark chapter. Iajuddin Ahmed could not withstand the pressure from General Moeen U. Ahmed and external powers and was forced to announce a state of emergency that led to a political catastrophe. Bangladeshis are still paying the price for the extra-constitutional government.
On the other hand, Abdur Rahman Biswas, a politician whom the BNP made president in 1991, strongly handled the coup attempt of Lt. General Abu Saleh Mohammad Nasim before the seventh general elections in 1996. His bold measures saved the continuity of the parliamentary system of government.
The Awami League made a similar mistake by electing former Chief Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed, who headed the caretaker administration after the downfall of military ruler HM Ershad through a mass upsurge in 1990. Shahabuddin Ahmed was financially honest, and his public image was clean. But his commitment can be questioned. Bangladesh parliament had to amend the constitution solely for his return to the position of Chief Justice after the fifth general elections in early 1991. This instance shows how self-centred he had been regarding his job.
Many Awami League leaders suggested that Sheikh Hasina make the senior-most Presidium Member, Abdus Samad Azad, the president, but she did not agree, to build her party’s good image. In the eighth general elections, the Awami League lost. Sheikh Hasina alleged that the October 2001 general elections were rigged. As the media reported, Sheikh Hasina saw Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed and ranted about the caretaker administration.
Shahabuddin Ahmed took it personally and issued a press statement to counter Sheikh Hasina’s rigging allegations. A politically mature president would definitely have handled the issue better without bringing the dispute into the public sphere.
The Awami League leaders still regret that the political situation in Bangladesh could have been different if Samad Azad had been the president. Even if Abdus Samad Azad had been the president, the Awami League was unlikely to come to power, as the BNP-Jamaat alliance had a higher voter ratio. But the Awami League could not have alleged that the votes were rigged, and the party would not have resorted to a long parliamentary boycott.
Bangladesh is a society dominated by a small clique of people who wield huge influence in business, the military, administration, the judiciary, the media, NGOs, foreign embassies, and other important institutions. They nurture a hatred for politics and politicians. This cabal works systematically to build the image of selected individuals through the media, which turns to them for commentary on many important public issues. These educated people – most of them holding higher degrees from foreign universities – speak smoothly and are always criticising the government and political leaders. They frequently appear on television talk shows and talk about popular issues.
However, their activities hardly show they have any feeling for the ordinary people of the country. Many hold foreign citizenship, with their children studying and living abroad. We have seen some of them serve as advisers with the rank of ministers and state ministers during the tenure of interim and caretaker governments. These clean-image individuals have indulged in corruption and malpractice while in office, and their true face is only revealed once they are empowered by their public image. Although the presidency is ceremonial, it is the highest political office. We need a highly mature politician for this post.
Through my experience in journalism and close interaction with political leaders, I have learned that politicians actually maintain strong communication and contact behind the scenes. While they spar in the public sphere with sharp attacks and sometimes harsh language to mobilise popular support, they essentially belong to the same community. For instance, a senior minister in the current BNP government is related by marriage to Sheikh Hasina’s family, and one of the most flamboyant parliamentary critics of Sheikh Hasina is the son-in-law of her cousin.
Although dangerous in some cases, here I like to view this positively. During times of political crisis, a mature politician as president can use his/her influence and relationships with leaders across party lines to help resolve confrontations through dialogue and mutual understanding.
The BNP leadership can demonstrate true prudence by electing a senior, politically-mature leader as the next president – someone committed to upholding democratic institutions. Conversely, electing a so-called ‘clean-image’ outsider would invite another political catastrophe for the country’s burgeoning democratic system, for which the people would ultimately pay a heavy price.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author
The author is a freelance writer
