Recent remarks attributed to Sushila Karki, Nepal’s interim prime minister and former chief justice, have triggered renewed debate across South Asia. Her reported insistence that Nepal will not allow itself to descend into the kind of political instability now associated with Bangladesh has been interpreted by some as a moral benchmark and by others as a political rebuke.
As a human rights defender, I believe this moment deserves neither applause nor outrage, but careful reflection. The real issue is not whether Bangladesh should “learn” from Nepal, but whether South Asian states and societies are prepared to confront the deeper causes of democratic erosion—before streets replace institutions, and force replaces legitimacy.
No Democracy Can Be Governed by the Street Alone
At the level of democratic principle, the warning resonates. No constitutional system can function when governance is dictated by mob pressure rather than lawful process. When intimidation, arson, or perpetual street vetoes determine political outcomes, democratic accountability collapses. Elections lose meaning, courts lose authority, and policymaking becomes hostage to fear.
In that limited sense, the principle attributed to Karki is correct: governments cannot surrender authority to the street without endangering democracy itself.
But principles cannot be applied mechanically. Context matters.
Bangladesh’s Crisis Did Not Begin with “Mob Violence”
To frame Bangladesh’s current turmoil primarily as a failure to resist mobs is to misunderstand its trajectory. Bangladesh did not arrive at this point because a legitimate and trusted state suddenly gave in to unruly crowds. It arrived here after years of institutional exhaustion, political exclusion, shrinking civic space, and the systematic erosion of trust in electoral and judicial mechanisms.
When institutions cease to be credible, the street does not emerge as an ideological choice—it becomes a substitute arena. Protests that begin with legitimate grievances can devolve into disorder precisely because there are no trusted channels for mediation, accountability, or reform.
As a rights defender, I must be clear: mob violence is unacceptable, but so is a political order that leaves citizens with no meaningful institutional recourse. One cannot condemn the symptom while ignoring the disease.
Nepal and Bangladesh Are at Different Stages, Not Different Universes
Nepal’s current debate reflects a country still at a warning stage. Youth movements are impatient, political parties are unstable, and governance is strained, but the basic architecture of legitimacy has not yet fully collapsed. The discussion there is preventive—how to stop erosion before it becomes irreversible.
Bangladesh, by contrast, is in a damage-control phase. The erosion has already occurred. Elections are contested, institutions are mistrusted, and politics has been forced into the street not as an alternative, but as a last resort for many citizens.
This distinction is crucial. Nepal’s challenge is how to prevent collapse; Bangladesh’s challenge is how to rebuild legitimacy after collapse.
Authority Must Be Earned, Not Asserted
The most important lesson Bangladesh can draw from this regional discourse is not about resisting protest or asserting state power. It is about understanding that authority without legitimacy cannot endure.
Governments do not prevent mob rule by denouncing mobs. They prevent it by:
-
restoring credible elections,
-
reopening civic space,
-
guaranteeing judicial independence,
-
and allowing dissent to be channelled through institutions rather than driven into the streets.
At the same time, protest movements must recognise that permanent mobilisation is not governance. Without organisation, discipline, and respect for democratic procedures, even just causes can be captured by opportunists, extremists, or external actors with no commitment to rights or accountability.
A Shared South Asian Responsibility
What we are witnessing across South Asia is not a binary struggle between governments and citizens, but a deeper crisis of institutional credibility. Bangladesh’s experience is a warning not because Bangladesh is uniquely flawed, but because it shows how quickly stability can unravel once trust is lost. Nepal’s debate matters because it reflects a society still arguing—publicly and urgently—about how to avoid that fate.
As a human rights defender, my position is clear and consistent:
-
State repression is not stability.
-
Mob violence is not democracy.
-
Legitimacy, accountability, and institutions are the only sustainable path forward.
Conclusion
The claim that Bangladesh should “learn from Nepal” is partly correct but dangerously incomplete. The real lesson is not obedience to authority or resistance to protest, but the urgent necessity of rebuilding democratic institutions so that neither mobs nor repression become substitutes for governance.
In the end, no country is saved by strong words or moral posturing. Democracies survive when states earn trust and citizens defend institutions—before the street becomes the only arena left.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please validate CAPTCHA