Justice and reform in Bangladesh routinely succumb to the gravitational pull of partisan vengeance and institutional vanity. Two recent developments point out this systemic frailty: the dubious expansion of genocide charges at the International Crimes Tribunal, and the swift betrayal of constitutional reform by a newly empowered political class.
Taken together, these twin episodes demonstrate why arbitrary judicial power and unconstrained executive authority remain the principal curses of the nation's fragile democracy.
The tribunal occupies an unchecked position within Bangladeshi jurisprudence. Unlike standard criminal courts, its interlocutory decisions, detention orders, and procedural charges are completely immune from High Court oversight or constitutional appeal prior to a final verdict.
Operating in a heated political environment primed for retribution against the defeated Awami League, such absolute autonomy demands rigorous independent scrutiny by journalists and legal observers.
On July 27 this year, the tribunal took formal cognisance of charges against forty-one individuals—comprising politicians, police officers, journalists, and activists—concerning the fatal police dispersal of a Hefazet-e-Islam rally in May 2013. The formal indictment includes allegations of crimes against humanity and, remarkably, genocide.
The legal foundation for the genocide charge is glaringly suspect. Under international law, genocide requires an explicit intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Prosecutors appear to contend that by killing Hefazet demonstrators, the accused sought to destroy a segment of Bangladesh’s Muslim population.
Yet even if the state establishes that sixty-one protesters died, classifying this number as a substantial part of a national community numbering roughly one hundred and fifty million people defies all established legal precedent.
Furthermore, proving genocide requires concrete evidence that victims were targeted specifically because of their religious identity—an assertion unsupported by the facts—and that the killings occurred within a manifest pattern of similar conduct, as stipulated by the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute.
To stretch the grave legal definition of genocide to cover lethal crowd-control operations degrades international legal norms purely to serve domestic political convenience.
If judicial mechanisms are being distorted to punish old adversaries, the institutions designed to prevent future tyranny are being quietly dismantled. Having ridden a wave of public discontent back into office on a platform of structural renewal, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party has swiftly reverted to traditional habits.
The party allowed vital reform ordinances passed under the interim administration—governing enforced disappearances, judicial appointments, anti-corruption oversight, and police accountability—to lapse quietly in parliament.
The July Charter, a reform framework heavily championed during the election campaign, was promptly demoted from a solemn mandate to a vague political suggestion. By sabotaging the second oath required to seat the constitutional reform council, the party ensured that democratic constraints on executive power were strangled before taking root.
Power, for the ruling party, was always the final destination rather than an instrument for enlightened statecraft. Unsurprisingly, local rackets and extortion networks operating under the party banner have resurfaced across the districts, while internal factional violence signals a return to transactional mob politics. Yet the opposition offers no moral refuge.
Jamaat-e-Islami and the National Citizen Party position themselves as clean-handed custodians of reform, but their conduct exposes deep hypocrisy. Jamaat’s foundational ideology, derived from Abul A'la Maududi, explicitly rejects popular sovereignty in favor of absolute divine rule.
Today, however, Jamaat opportunistically invokes the democratic will of the people to demand the full enforcement of the referendum, proving that doctrine readily bends to tactical advantage.
Jamaat’s commitment to clean politics vanishes the moment local authority is exercised. Its parliamentarians boast on camera of removing police chiefs and military officers at will, mock female lawmakers in public sermons, and oversee street cadres who assault journalists under the pretext of anti-regime vigilantism.
If this is how the party behaves while occupying opposition benches, its promises of dignified governance in office are pure fantasy.
These twin spectacles—a judicial tribunal unmoored from rigorous legal precision and a ruling political class utterly unbothered by its own reform promises—illustrate a fundamental, enduring truth about the nature of democratic statecraft.
Constitutional frameworks and extraordinary legal bodies must never be constructed on the naive assumption that those in power will act with self-restraint, wisdom, or moral virtue. Power inevitably corrodes the intentions of those who capture it, regardless of their campaign rhetoric.
The enduring value of institutional guardrails, such as those envisioned in the July Charter, lies precisely in their deep, institutionalized distrust of the political class. Such mechanisms exist to bind the hands of potential tyrants long before they reach the supreme levers of state authority.
Until Bangladesh constructs genuine, unyielding structural checks that can comfortably survive changing political tides and partisan ambitions, its judicial decisions and legislative processes will continue to serve as mere weapons of convenience for whichever arrogant political faction currently happens to hold state office. Institutional design, not pious intention, remains the ultimate test.
—
Md Ashraf Aziz Ishrak Fahim is academically trained across Thailand, England, and Qatar, bringing together political, philosophical, and theological perspectives. He writes on the intersection of politics, society, gender, religion, and culture in Bangladesh and beyond