Saarc politicians under accountability spotlight

"Dhaka is effectively cut off, people in panic," read the front-page headline of the Bengali-language newspaper Prothom Alo last Friday. In other words, Bangladesh is suffering from a severe bout of political unrest following the announcement of a court verdict in a key corruption case. Khaleda Zia, who leads the opposition in Bangladesh, was convicted for corruption on Thursday. A cursory look at Bangladesh's constitution shows that the verdict could effectively bar her from running in the December general elections. "This is an attempt to use the court against me, in an effort to sideline me from politics and elections and to isolate me from the people," Khaleda had told a packed news conference on the eve of court's verdict against her. Not only does the court decision confirm Khaleda's fears, it also lends credence to accusations that the India-leaning Awami League government of Hasina Wajid has planned to keep the head of Bangladesh National Party (BNP) out of politics.
According to media reports, Judge Mohammad Akhtaruzzaman sentenced the two-time former prime minister to five years rigorous imprisonment. Khaleda and five others were accused of embezzlement of funds meant for the Zia Orphanage Trust. Tarique Rahman, Khaleda's elder son and heir apparent, and four others were sentenced to 10 years in this politically significant case less than one year before general elections. Rahman, vice chairman of the BNP, who has been living in the UK for the past nine years was appointed party's acting head on Friday. The six were accused of embezzling over Taka 21 million ($252,000) from foreign donations intended for a charity named after former President Ziaur Rahman, Khaleda's husband. The four others who also received 10-year jail terms are: a former legislator, former principal secretary to Zia, one of her nephews and a businessman. According to reports, the judge of a special court read out only selected parts of the 632-page verdict.
The gravity of situation can be gauged from the fact that thousands of police and paramilitary guards were seen patrolling the Bangladesh capital prior to announcement of the verdict which, according to the government, proves "no one is above the law". BNP secretary general Fakhrul Islam Alamgir however rejected the court decision, arguing that "this is a false and staged case" while Khaleda's lawyer was of the view that the ruling was "political vengeance" and would be overturned by the high court. But there is no doubt about the fact that 72-year-old Khaleda's entire political career has been marred by corruption allegations and the charges against her already led to her boycotting the 2014 elections. The political unrest in Bangladesh at this point in time clearly proves that the country is yet to have strong institutions to enable its people to take advantage of political opportunities and to withstand the turbulence and strains associated with political change. Human Rights Watch's assessment of the situation is therefore spot-on. Urging Hasina Wajid's government to stop arbitrary arrests and detentions, it has said that "the Bangladesh government's claims of being open and democratic ring hollow as it cracks down on political dissent. ...The government has a responsibility to prevent and minimize violence, but it needs to do so in a way that respects basic rights, not flouts them".
Be that as it may, whatever is happening on the streets of Bangladesh's capital Dhaka and elsewhere in this South Asian country did not happen in Pakistan when three-time elected prime minister Nawaz Sharif was disqualified over corruption charges by his country's apex court less than a year ago. Pakistan witnessed little or no spontaneous public anger even after the "judicial murder" of a popular former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto; it was only the killing of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto that triggered violent protests on a massive scale in the country, particularly in her home province Sindh. Bangladesh that was conceived in the womb of Pakistan nearly five decades ago seems to be still struggling to evolve itself into a stable nation state or have firmly rooted state institutions that are evidently compatible with democracy since democracy implies, among other things, a fair and impartial legal process.