Peddling democracy

In a troubling demonstration of political retribution masked as judicial process, Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal has delivered a verdict that threatens to unravel the nation’s democratic fabric. The death sentence imposed on former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan represents more than a legal judgment-it is a brazen attempt to eliminate political opposition through judicial manipulation. The tribunal’s ruling, handed down on November 17, reveals a deeply compromised judicial system that has become an instrument of political vengeance. Interim leader Muhammad Yunus’s government has transformed the courtroom into an arena of political warfare, using legal mechanisms to surgically remove a prominent political rival. The simultaneous move to ban Awami League activities ahead of the February 2026 elections exposes the true nature of this orchestrated political purge. International observers and legal experts have roundly condemned the proceedings. The United Nations has explicitly highlighted the fundamental flaws in a trial conducted in absentia, which flagrantly disregards basic principles of fair judicial process. Respected legal fraternities have characterized the sentence as not just improper, but fundamentally illegal-a verdict built on the shaky foundation of a nearly half-century-old legal framework. The broader implications extend far beyond Bangladesh’s borders. The verdict has ignited a diplomatic powder keg, particularly with India, creating a complex and volatile geopolitical landscape. More alarmingly, the release of imprisoned individuals, including those with terrorist backgrounds, has created a security vacuum that threatens regional stability. Recent terror incidents, including the devastating attack near Delhi’s Red Fort on November 10, underscore the potential consequences of this political instability. Intelligence reports suggest a sophisticated network of threats emerging from the power vacuum, with cross-border terror networks poised to exploit the situation.The Tribunal’s approach raises serious questions about the nature of accountability. While no leader should be above the law, the use of capital punishment as a political tool represents a dangerous precedent. The tribunal appears more interested in eliminating a political rival than in pursuing genuine justice. By holding Hasina solely responsible for governmental decisions made during a period of civil unrest, the proceedings demonstrate a selective and punitive approach to justice. Critics argue that this is less about accountability and more about a calculated political strategy. The Yunus government seems intent on removing Hasina from the political landscape through judicial execution rather than democratic competition. This approach not only undermines the democratic process but also sets a chilling precedent for future political discourse in Bangladesh. The verdict reveals a deeply fractured political system where legal institutions have been co-opted to serve narrow political interests. It represents a dangerous erosion of democratic norms, where political differences are resolved through judicial persecution rather than electoral competition. As Bangladesh approaches its 2026 general elections, the international community must closely scrutinize these developments. Bangladesh always had a problem with democracy as the nation is more inclined towards mobocracy. The future of Bangladesh’s democracy hangs in the balance, threatened by those who are willing to sacrifice fundamental democratic principles for short-term political gains. The challenge is for a return to genuine democratic dialogue, respect for judicial independence, and a commitment to resolving political differences through dialogue and democratic processes.