[A few miles away, the current prime minister — a
twinkly, grandmotherly type — had declared victory in a blatantly one-sided
round of elections, walking down a red carpet that had been unrolled on her
front lawn. Withering criticism was coming in, both from Western governments
and Bangladeshi newspapers, but she glowed with confidence, joking easily.]
DHAKA, Bangladesh — Two ladies eyed
each other from their elegant residences in Dhaka, the Bangladeshi capital,
last week, each waiting to see whether the other would blink.
The
former prime minister, stern-faced and imperious as a medieval queen, received
visitors in a creamy white sitting room as a servant brought pastries. She had
spent the week under de facto house arrest, blockaded behind the police and
five large trucks loaded with sand, but seemed unruffled.
“Many
times I was under house arrest,” she said flatly. “Many times I was in jail.”
A
few miles away, the current prime minister — a twinkly, grandmotherly type —
had declared victory in a blatantly one-sided round of elections, walking down
a red carpet that had been unrolled on her front lawn. Withering criticism was
coming in, both from Western governments and Bangladeshi newspapers, but she
glowed with confidence, joking easily.
When
a journalist asked whether she believed the election had thrust the country
deeper into political instability, the prime minister peered at him through her
spectacles, saying: “What do you want, that I should start crying, ‘Oh, crisis,
we have a crisis!’ Do you want that?”
For
the past 20 years, control of Bangladesh has been largely in the hands of the
“two ladies,” as they are known: Begum Khaleda Zia, now in opposition, and
Sheikh Hasina, now prime minister. Stubborn, autocratic and very popular, they
have each won two of the past four elections, and their rivalry has contributed
to a kind of balance.
This
past week may mark the end of their coexistence — and the beginning of a risky
attempt at one-party rule.
Prolonged
turmoil here could have profound consequences. A rare Muslim democracy,
Bangladesh is experiencing steady economic growth and has porous air, land and
maritime borders that could make it an ideal transit point for terrorists. It
also has a winner-take-all political tradition epitomized by the dueling
matriarchs, each of whom took a major gamble as the election approached.
Mrs.
Zia gambled by boycotting the elections and by relying on violent street
agitation to advance her agenda. Mrs. Hasina gambled by holding an election
that excluded the major opposition party, betting that the international
condemnation would not be harsh enough to force her to back down and hold a new
vote, as most Western governments are urging.
It
seems now that Mrs. Hasina’s bet paid off. No one is talking seriously about
new elections in the near future. But in a country with a tradition of stormy
protest, few observers expect the new arrangement to be a stable one,
especially if Mrs. Zia sees continued strikes as her only defense. Neither
woman is ready to back down, and, in their elegant homes, both seem oddly cut
off from the turmoil outside.
“In
recent years, there has been a strong inclination on the side of both of them
to create their own reality,” said a retired Bangladeshi official, who spoke on
condition of anonymity for fear of offending the leaders. “They both think
they’ve won.”
Much
of the recent history of Bangladesh has been driven by the conflict between
these two leaders. Diplomatic cables sent from the embassy in Dhaka, released
by WikiLeaks, are a litany of exasperation: “Bangladesh Political Rerun: The
Sheikh Hasina-Khaleda Zia Show is Back on Air” and “Zia Rehashes Old Complaints
About Awami League.”
The
grievances are, in a way, an outgrowth of dynastic politics. Both women were
thrust into politics by violence. Mrs. Zia was the tongue-tied wife of
Bangladesh’s first military ruler when he was killed in 1981.
Mrs.
Hasina was the daughter of Bangladesh’s first president, studying abroad when,
in 1975, a group of soldiers drove a tank into her house and shot a dozen
members of her family, including her 10-year-old brother. Mrs. Hasina has long
suspected her rival’s camp of involvement, and is particularly stung that Mrs.
Zia chooses to hold her public birthday celebration on the anniversary of her
family’s murders, which Mrs. Hasina designated a national day of mourning.
The
two women have barely ever met in person, and when they try to conduct state
business, rage over the past leaps up to blind them. In 2007, Bangladeshi
generals grew so frustrated by the friction that they jailed both women on
corruption charges, a plan that was known as the “minus two solution.”
But
within two years the two were out, greeted by cheering crowds.
“That
was really naïve, because the fact of the matter is that these are the two most
popular leaders in the country, and there is no space for anyone else,” said a
Western diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “These parties and
the leaders know how to deal with each other. They’ve been doing so for 22
years.”
This
turned out to be the year they could not. One can speculate on the reasons.
Both women are in their late 60s and hoping to ensure succession, probably to
their sons. Political violence has been at an incendiary level all year because
the government began a campaign to root out Islamists from politics. Because
Mrs. Zia formed an election-time alliance with Jamaat-e-Islami, the largest
Islamic party, government hard-liners began to describe her as a supporter of
militants.
Hasanul
Haq Inu, Bangladesh’s information minister, said there were debates in
government circles about whether Mrs. Zia should be excluded from politics.
“They say it is too risky,” he said. “I say Bangladesh will be risky with her.”
Against
that backdrop, the two women entered negotiations to organize elections. It is
a contorted, idiosyncratic process in Bangladesh, and in the past it was
managed through the creation of a neutral “caretaker government” to guard against
vote-rigging. Sheikh Hasina scrapped that system. Mrs. Zia prides herself on
her ability to take unbending, principled stands, and she decided to take one
here.
Though
her Bangladesh Nationalist Party still had a chance of winning, she declared a
boycott. When it became clear her rival would hold elections anyway, Mrs. Zia
called strikes that paralyzed roads and highways. Protesters torched trucks and
buses, in some cases with passengers aboard; vote-related deaths climbed to
100. On Election Day, Mrs. Zia’s supporters were under orders to discourage
voting.
Turnout
for the election on Sunday was indeed low, and the next day’s newspapers
described ballot-stuffing by pro-government activists that nudged the figure to
almost 40 percent. Western governments were severely critical, and both the
United States and Canada called for a new election. Mrs. Zia was delighted.
During an interview, she held up a newspaper with a photograph of an empty
polling station, remarking, “There isn’t anybody, only doggies.”
“They
must be feeling disappointment that the outcome they had wished didn’t happen,”
she said of the government. “The people of Bangladesh want an inclusive
election. Our people love to vote. The government cannot remain ignorant or
blind to that reality.”
Across
town, however, Sheikh Hasina jovially brushed off questions about whether her
win was tainted by fraud.
Criticism
over the elections and even the threat of sanctions did not seem to matter to
her. By midweek it seemed that the only force capable of compelling the
government to compromise was the military, said Mahfuz Anam, the editor of The
Daily Star newspaper here. “If Hasina can keep the military happy, she will
have her way all through,” he said. “There is nothing Khaleda Zia can do except
burn buses.”
With
the swearing in of a new Parliament that does not include the Bangladesh
Nationalist Party, Mrs. Hasina will effectively introduce one-party rule in
Bangladesh, and Mrs. Zia will lose the trappings of power she has enjoyed for
two decades. Vicious outbreaks of opposition violence are being reported, and
the government, too, has taken a hard line, arresting top leaders of the party
and charging thousands of people with taking part in election-related violence.
A
close aide to the prime minister, Gowher Rizvi, said he was sure new elections
would be held, but he was vague about the timetable. In the interim, he expects
a new opposition coalition to take shape to fill the vacuum, attracting
breakaway factions from the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. He noted, almost in
passing, that the disruption might make it impossible for Mrs. Zia to pass
power to her son.
“Two
things are absolutely sure,” he said. “The elections will happen, and B.N.P.
will be there. With or without Khaleda Zia.”
