The ouster of Sheikh Hasina, who ruled Bangladesh for 15 years, marks a pivotal shift in the nation’s political landscape. Her exit not only ends her extended dominance but also signals a broad regional shift away from dynastic politics and hyper-nationalism.

Protests against Hasina highlighted the growing intolerance among the youth for corruption and arbitrary rule, reflecting similar trends in other South Asian countries. CNN reported that Hasina’s resignation came amidst widespread violence and protests, with over 300 people killed and thousands injured.

The protests, initially sparked by discontent over job quotas, escalated into a broad movement against Hasina’s authoritarian governance and alleged nepotism. The New York Times noted that Hasina’s departure marked a significant turn in Bangladesh’s politics, possibly paving the way for a more democratic and accountable governance structure.

The Guardian emphasised the regional implications of Hasina’s ouster, suggesting that it might influence the neighbouring countries to reconsider their own political dynamics dominated by entrenched leaders and families. This sentiment was also echoed by The Diplomat, which highlighted the widespread discontent with economic mismanagement and suppression of dissent, fuelling the demands for democratic reform and accountability in Bangladesh and across South Asia.

Hasina Wajid’s tenure as the prime minister of Bangladesh was marked by significant economic growth and infrastructure development. However, her rule was also characterised by allegations of authoritarianism, suppression of dissent and pervasive corruption. Her administration’s high-handedness towards the opposition, particularly towards political rivals such as Khaleda Zia, leader of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, and the Jamaat-i-Islami was notable.

Khaleda Zia faced numerous trials and periods of imprisonment. Members of Jamaat-i-Islami were often targeted under the guise of war crimes trials, which many viewed as politically motivated. A noted Indian political theorist, Partab Bhanu Mehta observed, “Hasina’s approach towards the opposition was not just about consolidating power but about eliminating any potential threat to her dynastic rule.”

Her unceremonious exit from power is not just the downfall of a leader but the disintegration of a political era defined by her family’s legacy. Sheikh Mujib-ur Rahman, widely revered as the father of Bangladesh, has a contested status in the nation’s history.

Despite his significant role in founding the country, his tenure was marred by accusations of authoritarianism and nepotism, setting a precedent for the dynastic politics that followed. Ironically, he was assassinated by the very people he had led to freedom, an event that precipitated a period of political instability and opened the door for military intervention.

In the ensuing power vacuum, leaders such as Zia-ur Rahman and Hossain Mohammad Ershad assumed control but failed to navigate Bangladesh out of its crises. Eventually, the landscape of Bangladeshi politics became dominated by dynastic figures, most notably Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina.

As political theorist Francis Fukuyama aptly noted, “Dynastic politics, while providing stability, often hinders the democratic process by limiting the pool of eligible leaders and stifling political competition.” This observation highlights the persistent challenge that Bangladesh has faced in balancing political stability with democratic vitality.

Under Hasina, Bangladesh experienced a surge in hyper-nationalism, predominantly characterised by anti-Pakistan sentiment. This nationalism was often leveraged to consolidate political support and divert attention from domestic issues. However, the strategy proved unsustainable in the long term.

The events in Bangladesh hold a critical lesson for the ruling elite in Pakistan: the youth are a formidable political force demanding and deserving attention. New strategies must be developed to address their aspirations.

The youth in Bangladesh, like their counterparts in the rest of South Asia, are increasingly demanding governance that prioritises economic opportunities, transparency and accountability over divisive rhetoric. Zbigniew Brzezinski aptly remarked, “In the age of globalisation, hyper-nationalism is a self-defeating strategy that often leads to internal divisions and external isolation.”

The decline of dynastic politics in Bangladesh reflects a broad regional trend. In South Asia, dynastic politics has often been synonymous with entrenched corruption and stagnation. The case of Sri Lanka is particularly instructive; the collapse of the Rajapaksa dynasty was marked by economic turmoil and public unrest.

In India, the decline of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty gave rise to a new political paradigm dominated by the Bharatiya Janata Party) that espoused an ultra right-wing and unilateralist approach to governance.

Ashutosh Varshney argues that “the fall of dynasties in South Asia often leads to a period of political re-alignment and turmoil as new power structures emerge.” Bhanu Partab further notes, “The youth in these nations are no longer passive observers but active participants demanding change.”

The political upheavals in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and India hold crucial lessons for Pakistan. The persistence of dynastic politics in Pakistan, coupled with its own brand of hyper-nationalism, poses significant risks to its political stability. As noted by Ayesha Jalal, “Pakistan’s political landscape is at a crossroads, where the old guard of dynastic politics must adapt or face obsolescence. The youth’s demand for genuine democratic reforms cannot be ignored.” The decision makers in Pakistan must heed these regional developments and pivot towards inclusive and accountable governance to avoid a similar fate.

The recent developments in Bangladesh underscore the pivotal role of the youth in shaping the political future of South Asia. The young population, increasingly disenchanted with traditional power structures and rhetoric, demands tangible socio-economic progress and democratic integrity.

This generational shift is eloquently captured by political analyst Fareed Zakaria, who stated, “The youth today are less tolerant of political charades and more insistent on real, measurable progress. They represent a force that can no longer be placated by mere promises.”

Conclusion:

The unceremonious exit of Hasina Wajid and the concurrent decline of hyper-nationalism in Bangladesh signify the beginning of a new political era. This shift is reflective of a broad regional trend where dynastic politics is becoming obsolete.

The youth in South Asia are no longer willing to countenance exploitation and arbitrary rule, demanding instead governance that is transparent, accountable and responsive to their aspirations. The experiences of Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and India provide a cautionary tale for Pakistan and other nations in the region, highlighting the urgent need for political reform and the dangers of clinging to outdated political paradigms.

The events in Bangladesh have a critical lesson for the ruling elite in Pakistan: the youth are a formidable political force that demands and deserves attention. To address their aspirations, new strategies must be developed. The key to this approach is regular leadership changes and adherence to the will of the people through free and fair elections. Embracing transparency, meritocracy and social justice as guiding principles will prevent the kind of humiliation experienced by Sheikh Hasina in Bangladesh.

A commitment to democratic values and responsive governance will ensure stability and respect for both de facto and de jure rulers in Pakistan.The fall of dynasties and the rise of new political movements herald a transformative period in South Asian politics. As these countries navigate this complex landscape, the voices and demands of the youth will undoubtedly play a crucial role in shaping a more democratic and equitable future.

The writer is a professor in the Faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beaconhouse National University, Lahore