How Bangladesh broke free while Pakistan remains shackled by military power (IANS Analysis)

New Delhi, Aug 22 (IANS) Sheikh Hasina ruled Bangladesh for over 15 years, securing four consecutive electoral victories. However, it took just 35 days of student-led protests, supported by a significant portion of the population disillusioned by the country’s struggling economy and rising unemployment, to force her out of office.

The ability of the student movement to effect such a political change without plunging Bangladesh into military rule demonstrates that democracy, however fragile, has taken root in the country.In stark contrast, Pakistan, from which Bangladesh emerged after a bloody war in 1971, faces an even worse economic and unemployment crisis.Despite year-long student protests and political campaigns advocating for constitutional supremacy, the de facto ruling military dominated hybrid regime of Pakistan has successfully suppressed every cent of dissent from Balochistan to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to Sindh to Punjab.This fundamental difference highlights how deeply entrenched the Pakistan Army remains within civilian institutions, reducing its democracy to nothing but a mere illusion.Yet, the success of the Bangladeshi student’s movement appears to have inspired the Pakistan Students Federation (PSF), a nationwide student organisation, to issue an ultimatum to the government: fulfil their demands by August 30, or face a countrywide agitation.Among their prominent demands are the restoration of constitutional rule of law, the release of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, who has emerged as a symbol of resistance against the status quo, and the military’s decades-long dominant control over the country’s civilian institutions.Imran Khan has been imprisoned since August 6, 2023, facing multiple charges including corruption. His wife, Bushra Bibi, who is co-accused in several corruption cases, is also in custody.While the student calls for democratic revival in Pakistan are encouraging, the situations in Bangladesh and Pakistan are fundamentally different.In Bangladesh, an elected prime minister, though having concentrated much of power over years, exercised authority over the political system, including the armed forces of the country.In contrast, in Pakistan, the military retains unassailable power, overseeing a system that functions as an authoritarian hybrid, with only a facade of civilian government.That should perhaps explain why the protests in Pakistan have largely failed to make any mark with the military establishing using every state resource curb the opposition to its misdeeds.While the divergent outcome of protest movements in Bangladesh and Pakistan may be intriguing, it requires a deeper examination of their democratic trajectories since 1971, when Bangladesh, then East Pakistan, emerged as an independent state following a bloody military campaign by the Pakistan Army killing thousands of people.Initially though, both countries exhibited similar tendencies toward military rule.Bangladesh, for example, has witnessed at least 21 military coup attempts since 1971.There were three coups in a single year of 1975, beginning with the assassination of its founding President, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, on August 15, 1975.During the late 1970s and 1980s, the line between military and civilian bureaucracy was blurred, particularly under Ziaur Rehman’s rule who appointed dozens of retired officers to prominent civilian posts besides offering lucrative jobs across other sectors to hundreds of other officers.However, since 2008 when Bangladesh Army handed over power to popularly elected Sheikh Hasina-led Awami League government following its two-year rule, the military’s role in political affairs has significantly diminished.This shift was evident during the recent student-led movement when Army Chief General Waker-uz-Zaman informed PM Sheikh Hasina that his forces would not use violence against civilians, ultimately leading to her resignation on August 5, 2024, thereby bringing end to her 15 years of rule.Though many expected that the military might usurp power, in reality it has facilitated takeover by a civilian interim government.Additionally, several senior government officials, including Supreme Court judges perceived close to Hasina’s administration, have since resigned to allow the interim government to take shape, restore the rule of law and oversee new elections as soon as possible.A decade ago, such developments would have been unexpected, as the military was often poised to seize any opportunity to reclaim political power. This distancing of the military from