PROSPECTS are good for a relatively free and fair election in Bangladesh on Dec. 29 after two years of an army-backed government that restricted political rights, but whether democracy sticks is another question. If not, investors may stay away and the country will remain stuck in a cycle of instability that holds it back from dealing with massive poverty or getting along without foreign aid. Analysts, NGOs and former officials have raised concerns over whether the Indian Ocean country of more than 140 million people can break old habits of taking politics to the street, sporadic bouts of military rule, and endemic corruption. Earlier in the year there had been doubts the December parliamentary election would even be held, or if so would include the country's two top parties, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the Awami League. The interim authority had cancelled an earlier election after taking over in January 2007 amid widespread political turmoil. It instituted emergency rule that banned most political activities, but vowed to hand power to an elected government in January 2009. A government minister said this week that: “Now we are driving through the last kilometer of a long road to democracy,” said Hossain Zillur Rahman, commerce and education adviser (minister) in the interim authority. The government has set the stage for what should be a reasonably fair election, cleaning up voter registration lists and bringing in outside observers. “The election looks like it will be free, fair and credible with major parties taking part and the interim government looking pretty serious to keep their commitment (for returning country to democracy),” said professor Ataur Rahman, chairman of Bangladesh Political Science Association. Dangers of army rule Under pressure from NGOs and foreign countries, the government made concessions to the BNP and Awami League to ensure they both participated, thus making the election more credible. But while BNP and Awami candidates on the ballot may add to the election's legitimacy, some analysts note that in the past the same parties were reluctant to accept election results when they lost, their supporters often resorted to violence, and officials in both were widely seen as deeply corrupt. The “parties must not take the international community's support for elections as an endorsement of their behaviour but rather see it as belated recognition of the dangers of military rule,” one well-respected NGO, the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, said recently. The interim government detained former prime ministers Sheikh Hasina of the Awami League and Begum Khaleda Zia of the BNP for alleged graft and abuse of power. But the two women are again top contenders in the coming polls. Abul Hasan Chowdhury, former state minister of foreign affairs, was pessimistic. “What happened over the past two years was certainly a blow for our politics. But I don't think our politicians will take any lesson from it,” he said. Felice Gaer, chairman of the United States Commission of International Religious Freedom, said Bangladesh was trying to hold a free and peaceful election “in spite of the threats of militancy, chronic political violence and growing intolerance towards religious minorities.” Another concern is the military, viewed as the power behind the interim government. Some doubt it will easily step aside despite pledges to honour election results. Army generals ruled Bangladesh for 15 years until the end of 1990, either in uniform or in civilian suits. “Regardless of who wins the election, the next government and the opposition parties will face the challenges of making parliament work and contending with an army that wants a greater say in politics,” the ICG said in a statement this month. Not everyone is pessimistic. “If there is a free and fair election and politicians resolve to run the political institutions the way they should be, I don't think anybody will be able to dictate (to) them,” said Shahedul Anam Khan, an independent defense analyst.
