Bangladesh says that it failed to learn from the Arab Spring of 2010 which had exuded a lesson that the hoi polloi could join hands to oust an entrenched authority, be it a monarchy or an authoritarian regime. Paying no heed to ground realities propped by the wave of awareness, Bangladesh remained enmeshed in its totalitarian leanings, despite practicing democracy and claiming constitutionalism. Bangladesh met its socio-political Waterloo on August 5.

The flawed assumption presiding over repression remained that Bangladesh was far removed from the reach of the Arab Spring (an uprising), which was fashioned by a lethal triad of change, youth, and social media. The combination is still ruthless sparing none, answering the question of why tyranny is averse to the concept of digital democracy personified as social media, which revels in its strength of being participatory inciting collective consciousness, contrary to electronic media which remains amenable to the state’s dictation. The year 2010 may be counted as the time of the rise of social media oozing a sense of informal collaboration at a new public sphere in the Arab world. Eventually, the Arab youth got attracted to social media sites which proliferated swiftly to cater to their protesting needs. Like the Arab world, Bangladesh also became a victim of collective activism of the (progressive) youth disdainful of the oppressive past.

Since 2009, when Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Hasina Wazed took over power to enjoy four consecutive terms, she had been preferring to overwhelm the opposition and suppress dissent. The Election Commission was manipulated to serve the ruling party, the Awami League. To offset criticism, she kept harping on the refrain of patriotism, which was necessarily anti-Pakistan. That is, keep on raising a bogey to serve your cause. The current protests were the corollary of the quota reform movement that began in 2018. Assisted by the workers of the Awami League, Hasina Wazed’s government blocked the internet and social media to deal with dissidents with an iron hand. Protestors were met with brutal force ranging from the police to the paramilitary units. Opposed to Eastern norms, female youth (students) were manhandled in broad daylight – a crime against humanity. Curfews were imposed. She also made the last move by calling the protesting youth (students) terrorists and traitors. It was perhaps trendy in Bangladesh to debase and denounce protestors with such accursed titles to divert attention from real issues. Such tactics backfired this time. It was not only education sought through educational institutes that made the youth stand for their rights, but it was also awareness gathered through social media – unleashing uncensored word of mouth to facilitate decisions – which galvanized the youth into asking for their rightful place.

Luckily, Hasina Wazed was timely informed that thousands of protestors were marching on to storm her palace (and taste the cooked food), while millions were still in the streets waiting for their turn. It was a population explosion that engendered a young crowd thronging the streets, filling all voids possible. Population explosion is an unavoidable reality which brims with the potential of subjecting an authoritarian regime to collective activism. In Bangladesh, the population explosion showed its true face, disrespectful of any authority trampling over the domain of fairness. Hasina Wazed failed to realize that the ground was slipping beneath her feet. The combined force of change, youth, and social media had emerged transformational.

Violent protests had consumed the lives of nearly 300 young Bengalis who stood for their right to equal opportunities in government jobs. The youth wanted representation on the basis of merit, and not on the basis of offering preference to any one group of people establishing a monopoly over the major share of jobs. Skewing laws to benefit one group must be a norm in Bangladesh. Whereas the Arab Spring defeated the monopoly of the royal lineage, the Bangla Spring routed the monopoly of a selected few. Hasina Wazed lost her 15-year grip on the reins of power, which collapsed to the horror of those trying to replicate the Bangladesh model of governance elsewhere. The essence of the model is that people have to be guided by the army to make informed decisions and that, to attain the goal, the army may seek the help of the judiciary. In Bangladesh, the youth catapulted any such governance model and announced to hand over power to Dr Mohammad Yunas, a Noble laureate (who worked for the economic uplift of the poor) to head the interim government. This was how the youth introduced the formula of economic rise of the country with egalitarianism and replaced the formula of economic rise with authoritarianism (which was a cursed subsidiary of the Bangladesh model of governance). Indeed, running away from the native country to save one’s skin is a sight to behold. Along with Hasina Wazed, a helicopter took away the Bangladesh model of governance to India for the safety and preservation of both. Fleeing Bangladesh is an episode, carrying along the governance model is a feat.

After ruling over Bangladesh for fifteen years, Hasina Wazed could secure only forty-five minutes to save her life through being airlifted. Reinforcing the Arab Spring, the Bangla Spring aired the message that the act of not listening to the youth was not an act of valor displayed from any podium by anyone but it was an act of idiocy exercised for expressing haughtiness. The youth abhor arrogance especially when it is shown from a position of authority.

The difference between the two springs is that, during the Arab Spring, social media triggered socio-political activism, rendering no need for any renowned leader to lead the movement – for the institution of the youth’s rights. However, during the Bangla Spring, social media influenced socio-political crusading – for the restoration of the youth’s rights. It simply means that those countries are criminals who commit two acts: first, violate a given consensus-based written constitution, and second, disregard the basic tenets of democracy sprouting from the constitution.

Dr Qaisar Rashid
The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be reached at qaisarrashid@yahoo.com