Global trend of democratic transition
BANGLADESH is in urgent need of a democratic transition. It is pertinent to commence this discussion by examining global examples of democratic transitions in previously undemocratic states. Such transitions have typically been made possible through four key measures: prioritising national interests above political considerations, eliminating hegemonic influences from powerful neighbouring nations, institutionalising the military as a strictly non-political entity, and ceasing divisive politics among political parties.
Numerous examples can illustrate these policies effectively. South Africa’s peaceful transition to democracy in 1994 post-apartheid exemplifies the concept of a united ‘Rainbow Nation,’ which is free from oppressive elements and external political influences while ensuring that the military is neutral and politically restrained. A similar narrative can be observed in Poland, where prolonged Soviet influence led to Lech Wałęsa framing the struggle as a quest for national independence, emphasising national sovereignty over ideological considerations and divisive party politics in the late 1980s. The rejection of allegiance to powerful nations was pivotal to this democratic transition.
The Velvet Revolution of 1989 in post-communist Czechoslovakia also adhered to the aforementioned principles. The endeavours in both Poland and Czechoslovakia against undue external influence facilitated a swift, smooth, and sustainable democratic transition. National identity, sovereignty, and unity have consistently emerged as central themes across various historical transitions to democracy. In East Asia, South Korea’s democratisation in the 1980s, following the Gwangju Uprising, sought to restore national dignity, while the Philippines’ People Power Revolution (1986) aimed to reclaim its democratic identity.
Indonesia’s transition in 1998 emphasised stability and national well-being. Latin American transitions have reflected similar priorities. In Chile (1990) and Argentina (1983), democratisation was framed as a return to national sovereignty and unity. Brazil’s 1988 Constitution reaffirmed its commitment to sovereignty, while post-Pinochet Chile prioritised national unity over division. In post-Soviet states, Georgia’s transition in 1991 concentrated on independence and territorial integrity, while Ukraine’s Orange Revolution (2004) and Euromaidan (2014) highlighted national sovereignty amid external threats.
Following the fall of Milošević, Serbia demonstrated a focus on reclaiming national independence. Spain’s transition post-Franco’s death in the 1970s was driven by national pride and Iceland’s shift from monarchy to republic emphasised sovereignty. Tunisia’s Jasmine Revolution in 2011 framed democratisation in terms of national identity rather than political ideology.
Bangladesh acts opposite
IN ALL these instances, the pursuit of democracy was intricately linked to the assertion of national sovereignty and unity, transcending party lines to establish stable governance. In contrast, Bangladesh’s post-fascist democratic transition efforts appear to have deviated from this successful path. Current political developments starkly contrast the aforementioned examples. The military institutions seem to exhibit an entrenched allegiance to the ousted fascist ruler Sheikh Hasina and her party. Citizens are increasingly apprehensive, fearing that the Bangladeshi military may be devising plans to reinstate the Awami League within the political landscape. The party is not only perceived as overtly pro-Indian but is also widely criticised for fostering a legacy of political and diplomatic subordination to the hegemony of the powerful neighbouring nation. This situation undermines the foundational principles of national pride, independence, and sovereignty that are essential to the majority of Bangladesh’s citizens.
By summarising the democratic transition pattern seen in successful countries, we can identify a consistent sequence: first comes the country itself, followed by its citizens, then political institutions, political parties, and finally the bureaucracy. The military, which acts as an extension of the state structure, is positioned after civil bureaucracy in this hierarchy. It means that when the military intervenes in politics, it risks disrupting this natural order, potentially causing greater damage to the democratic framework of the nation. However, Bangladesh is under constant threat of military intervention in politics in different forms.
Concerns of failure to democratic transition
BANGLADESH is teetering on the edge of political chaos. Tensions between the military and a large segment of political parties and commoners seem to reach a boiling point. The tension is fuelled by the contentious possibility of military intervention to rehabilitate a regime that was overthrown in a bloody mass revolt. The Awami League, which ruled Bangladesh from 2009 until 2024, gained a global scale ill-reputation for the party’s fascist outfit, authoritarianism, Mafia enclosures, human rights violations, and the genocidal suppression of opposition movements. Despite the party-led regime’s fall in a bloody mass revolt in mid-2004, whispers are emerging that the military might step in, not just to maintain order, but to shore up the ousted party’s return to Bangladesh politics, an act that would further exacerbate the turmoil in political landscape of Bangladesh.
Concerns of the Bangladeshi commoners regarding military intervention in political matters and corresponding failure to assenting to democracy necessitate a critical examination of the global standards governing the interplay between military forces and political authority.
Centuries ago, in his seminal political treatise, The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu established foundational principles regarding military engagement in politics. The central tenet he advocated, which has been upheld globally, is the concept of the ‘Separation of Powers.’ He posits that military involvement in political affairs disrupts the equilibrium among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, ultimately leading to despotism.
Similarly, philosopher Immanuel Kant’s 18th-century ‘Democratic Peace Thesis’ asserts that democracies remain peaceful due to their institutional mechanisms for conflict mediation — characteristics that military-led governments inherently lack. Moreover, in 1957, Samuel Huntington’s influential work, The Soldier and the State, delineated the boundaries of Civil-Military Relations. He advocated for a stringent division between military functions and political processes to preserve democratic integrity, arguing that military interference transitions governance from democratic accountability to political control.
Numerous studies support the assertion that military intervention in political matters undermines democratic governance, often resulting in authoritarianism, oligarchy, and the erosion of state sovereignty. Such intervention distorts democratic principles by consolidating power, fostering corruption, and diminishing national sovereignty.
In many countries, the principle of military neutrality in politics is established within legal frameworks. The US Department of Defense Directive 1344.10, often referenced by UN officials, is regarded as a widely accepted standard for military engagement worldwide. This directive explicitly states that military personnel are prohibited from participating in partisan political activities. It helps ensure that the military remains apolitical, thereby preserving public trust and the integrity of the military institution.
Additionally, other globally recognised principles are endorsed and promoted by the UN and adopted by most democratic countries, drawing inspiration from US military guidelines. These guidelines emphasise that active-duty personnel must refrain from campaigning for political candidates or holding partisan roles. These rules act as a safeguard against the erosion of democratic institutions, ensuring that the military’s focus remains on national defence rather than political involvement.
Military neutrality is crucial for preserving democratic governance and maintaining healthy civil-military relations. By adhering to established directives, military personnel can avoid engaging in partisan activities while ensuring institutional integrity. The Brookings Institution has examined global case studies that illustrate how military empowerment can pose a challenge to democratisation, highlighting the unintended political consequences of military advice. The Army University Press warns of potential civil-military tensions and emphasises the importance of maintaining neutrality. One relevant resource is War Room, a platform from the US Army War College that debates whether military leaders should publicly participate in partisan politics. Together, these sources underscore the necessity of a politically neutral military to safeguard democratic stability.
Military involvement in politics has long been a contentious issue worldwide, often resulting in the erosion of democratic values, civil liberties, and political accountability. In countries where military forces exert influence over civilian governments, the risks of authoritarianism, instability, and corruption are significant. In Latin America, military coups were a common occurrence throughout the 20th century. Nations like Argentina, Brazil, and Chile faced military interventions that often resulted in brutal dictatorships. For instance, the military junta that came to power in Argentina in 1976 initiated a ‘Dirty War,’ targeting political opponents and dissidents. These regimes were not only undemocratic but also oppressive, leading to widespread human rights abuses. Bangladesh is also not an exception. She has also experienced numerous military interventions since independence in 1971, with gradual escalation of military influence over time weakening democratic institutions and inviting political instability.
Talukdar Maniruzzaman, in his landmark research Military Intervention in Politics, discusses how the politicization of military institutions erodes democratic principles. Maniruzzaman argues that military interference in politics results in the concentration of power, which often leads to authoritarianism and corruption. This pattern is evident in Bangladesh, where the increasing role of the military in politics has undermined the functioning of democratic institutions, weakened political competition, and created an environment of fear and repression. Military elites tend to concentrate power within a limited, unaccountable cohort, exacerbating corruption, inequality, and oligarchic rule.
As we witness this precarious moment in Bangladesh’s political history, it is crucial to examine the principles that should guide the nation’s governance. The situation we now find ourselves in underscores a fundamental political truth: the military must not engage in the partisan struggles that are the very essence of a democracy. The military’s role should be purely that of national defence, its duty to safeguard the country, not to manipulate its political direction. But why is it so important for the military to stay out of politics, and what are the broader implications for Bangladesh?
After the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, the military was primarily tasked with securing national borders, yet political instability soon drew it into governance. The assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1975 created a power vacuum that military leaders quickly exploited, with General Ziaur Rahman institutionalising military participation in politics. By aligning the military with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), Zia blurred the distinction between defence and governance, setting a precedent that would be further entrenched under General Hussain Muhammad Ershad. Ershad’s coup in 1982 marked a turning point in Bangladesh’s civil-military relations, as military officers were openly placed in key governmental positions. Though civilian rule was restored in 1990, military influence persisted, shaping the nation’s political trajectory in subsequent decades.
Under the Awami League’s rule (2009-2024), military involvement in governance became even more pronounced, with intelligence agencies such as DGFI, SSF, and RAB weaponized to suppress dissent and consolidate political control. While these agencies were originally intended for national security, their transformation into partisan instruments mirrored authoritarian strategies seen in militarised regimes worldwide. Additionally, the militarisation of the bureaucracy, through the appointment of military officers to civilian administrative roles, further eroded institutional independence. This fusion of military and political powers fostered corruption, inefficiency, and a weakened democratic framework, ensuring that governance served political interests rather than the nation’s welfare.
Beyond domestic repercussions, military entanglement in politics raised concerns about Bangladesh’s sovereignty, particularly in relation to India. The 2009 Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) massacre highlighted internal instability within the military, with allegations of foreign influence exacerbating fears of external interference. Bangladesh’s growing reliance on Indian military and intelligence support fuelled apprehensions that the country was shifting towards a state of strategic dependency, where political decisions were increasingly shaped by external forces rather than democratic will. This entanglement underscored the broader risks of a politicised military — eroding national security while simultaneously weakening independent decision-making.
In the past, the military’s increasing involvement in politics has proven to be a significant threat to Bangladesh’s democratic integrity and political stability. As evidenced by the country’s history of military interventions, from Ziaur Rahman to the present-day use of military intelligence agencies for political purposes, the consequences of militarising politics are far-reaching and dangerous. To protect the democratic values of Bangladesh and to ensure that her citizens enjoy the full benefits of political freedoms, the military must remain neutral, focused solely on national defence, and free from the influence of political parties. Only then can Bangladesh move towards a fruited democratic transition — a more stable, transparent, and accountable system of government.
Dr Helal Mohiuddin is a visiting professor at Montclair State University, New Jersey, USA, and director of research at Conflict and Resilience Research Institute, Canada.