Between Resistance, Power, and Political Dignity
The political life of Khaleda Zia is inseparable from the democratic history of Bangladesh. Her entry into politics was neither planned nor conventional; it emerged from a moment of national rupture marked by assassination, military intervention, and institutional fragility. From that rupture, Khaleda Zia became one of the most enduring symbols of Bangladesh’s struggle between democratic aspiration and authoritarian relapse.
An Unlikely Democrat in a Time of Crisis
Khaleda Zia did not seek power through ideological ambition or personal calculation. Historical accounts show that she entered politics reluctantly, under intense pressure from party leaders and grassroots activists following the assassination of President Ziaur Rahman and the subsequent erosion of civilian rule
At a time when military influence was consolidating under General H. M. Ershad, her emergence represented a civilian challenge to authoritarian normalisation.
Her rise reflected a broader democratic instinct within society: when institutions weaken, people often rally around symbolic figures who can restore political continuity. In this sense, Khaleda Zia’s early leadership embodied democracy as resistance—a refusal to accept military dominance as inevitable.
Democracy as Restoration, Not Domination
The most significant democratic contribution of Khaleda Zia came through her role in the mass movement against military rule during the 1980s. Alongside other opposition forces, she helped sustain pressure that ultimately dismantled authoritarian control and restored electoral democracy in 1991. That transition remains one of Bangladesh’s most important democratic achievements.
From a human-rights perspective, this period matters because it reaffirmed three core principles:
Civilian supremacy over the military
Electoral legitimacy as the basis of governance
Political pluralism as a democratic necessity
As Bangladesh’s first elected female Prime Minister, her leadership also expanded the symbolic boundaries of political participation in a deeply patriarchal society.
The Democratic Paradox of Power
Yet Khaleda Zia’s democratic legacy is not without contradiction. Like her principal political rival, she governed within a system increasingly shaped by winner-takes-all politics. Democratic institutions—parliament, judiciary, media, and law-enforcement agencies—gradually became entangled in partisan competition.
This erosion did not begin with one leader alone; it reflected a structural failure to institutionalise restraint, tolerance, and accountability. Nevertheless, the result was a democracy vulnerable to abuse, where political rivalry displaced rights-based governance. From a human-rights standpoint, this period illustrates a critical lesson: electoral democracy without institutional safeguards can drift toward repression.
Persecution, Prison, and the Crisis of Political Rights
Khaleda Zia’s later years highlight some of the gravest democratic deficits in contemporary Bangladesh. Her prolonged imprisonment, restricted access to medical treatment, and political exclusion raised serious concerns regarding due process, humane detention, and the instrumentalisation of the justice system.
These were not merely personal injustices; they symbolised a broader pattern of shrinking civic space, suppression of opposition voices, and erosion of political rights. International human-rights norms are clear: accountability must be impartial, transparent, and proportionate. When legal processes are perceived as selective, democracy itself is weakened.
In this sense, Khaleda Zia’s suffering became emblematic of a system where state power overshadowed political dignity.
Democracy After Suffering: A Moment of Restraint
Notably, after her release and amid political upheaval, Khaleda Zia refrained from calls for retaliation. Instead, she urged political calm and restraint. For human-rights defenders, this moment deserves recognition. It suggested an ethical awareness shaped by personal suffering—an understanding that democracy cannot be rebuilt through vengeance.
This restraint points to a deeper truth: democratic maturity is measured not by victory, but by how power is exercised after injustice.
Lessons for Bangladesh’s Democratic Future
Khaleda Zia’s life offers no simple narrative of heroism or failure. Rather, it presents a complex case study of democracy under pressure—where resistance, governance, repression, and endurance intersect.
For Bangladesh, the lesson is urgent and clear:
Democracy cannot survive without political rights for all, including opponents
Justice loses legitimacy when it becomes selective or punitive
Media freedom, minority protection, and independent institutions are not optional—they are foundational
If her life and passing provoke renewed commitment to these principles, her democratic legacy may yet serve a higher purpose.
May she rest in peace.
By Minhaz Samad Chowdhury
Independent Human Rights Defender and Policy Advocate
Focus Areas: State Violence • Media Freedom • Political Rights • Minority Protection • Democratic Accountability
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please validate CAPTCHA