Editorial: Nemesis of elected autocrats

NEW DELHI: To understand how quickly the pitch can queer for an authoritarian regime, we need to look no further than next door to Bangladesh. After ruling uninterrupted for 15 years, the Sheikh Hasina government in Dhaka has crumbled in the face of a fierce popular uprising, less than eight months since winning a one-sided election.

Hasina’s troubles began in July with students protesting against 30 per cent job reservation for the children and grandchildren of freedom fighters of the 1971 War of Liberation. After a month of bloody unrest in which more than 300 people were killed, matters came to a head on Sunday with riots breaking out nationwide. The regime ordered a curfew all over the country and shut down the internet to contain the revolt. However, on Monday, thousands of people from all walks of life defied the orders and joined the students in a long march on the Prime Minister’s official residence in Dhaka.

The loss of public trust in the regime was so complete and so evident that Sheikh Hasina could no longer count on the loyalty of the military, not after Army chief Waker-uz-Zaman publicly stated that his troops would “stand with the people.” The Prime Minister read the writing on the wall and resigned and was quickly flown to safety in India.

Despite her legacy of being the daughter of Mujib-ur-Rahman, the much-loved founder of the nation, Sheikh Hasina turned into the typical elected autocrat, especially in her last two terms in office. Her “landslide” victory in the general elections held in January 2024 gave her no real credibility. Before the election, she chose not to honour the convention of handing over the reins to an interim caretaker administration. The voter turnout was a mere 40 percent. The opposition Bangladesh National Party boycotted the election, as it had done in 2018. Shaikh Hasina’s Awami League party won 225 of the 300 direct seats in the Jatiya Sangsad, with 62 seats going to the so-called Independents, most of whom were her own party members fielded under cover to give the contest a semblance of competition.

That Sheikh Hasina’s cookie crumbled so quickly after a souped-up electoral success should sound a note of caution to elected autocrats worldwide. Closer home in South Asia, this is not the first time that a people have risen to bring down an elected autocrat. Two years ago, we saw the people of Sri Lanka overthrow the war hero Gotabaya Rajapakse after enduring months of economic difficulties. There is meaning in the nemesis of these regimes: victory in a Potemkin election, even a landslide won courtesy of technological stealth, pliable election officials, courts and police, and misuse of government machinery, is no insurance against the people’s anger when their hopes are belied.

For the Modi regime in India, Hasina's fall has additional significance. The conditions that brought about a youth revolt in Bangladesh exist in India too. Just as high unemployment fed popular ire across the border, India must reckon with unprecedented joblessness among the youth that no amount of statistical jugglery can conceal. Symptoms of this deep-seated problem have shown up in countless ways: young men going to fight in Russia or work in Gaza; families trying to sneak into the US from its southern and northern borders; lakhs of overqualified applicants jostling for a few paltry openings; and the nationwide outcry over NEET paper leaks. As Sheikh Hasina found, no landslide election victory can stand up to the tsunami of youth anger.