On the Discourse of Political Settlement in Bangladesh
What does political settlement really mean, and why does it matter? This article simplifies the concept and explores its relevance in the shifting political landscape of Bangladesh.
ছাত্রজনতার জুলাইয়ের গণঅভ্যুত্থানের পর থেকে ছাত্রনেতাদের বয়ানে এবং লেখায় নতুন রাজনৈতিক বন্দোবস্ত বা পলিটিকাল সেটেলমেন্ট শব্দবন্ধটি বেশ দৃষ্টিগোচর হচ্ছে। একাডেমিয়ায় পলিটিকাল সেটেলমেন্ট একটি বহুল ব্যবহৃত বিষয় হলেও জনসাধারণের কাছে এর অর্থ এবং তাৎপর্য স্পষ্ট নয়। রাজনৈতিক বন্দোবস্ত মানে কি এবং বাংলাদেশের রাজনীতিতে এর তাৎপর্য কি এ নিয়েই এই আর্টিকেলটি লেখা হয়েছে।
A new phrase political settlement (in Bengali: rajnoitik bondobosto) seems to have become a catchphrase among the student leaders and activists of the July mass uprising following the end of Sheikh Hasina’s authoritarian regime. Though the term frequently appears in news conferences, TV talk shows, newspaper Op-Eds, and social media write-ups, most people are unsure about what it actually means and why it is important to learn more about it. Political settlement indeed has no agreed upon definition, real-life examples, and is often used to mean something it does not represent. Writers or panelists in talk shows sometimes give superficial definitions of political settlement. This article explains this idea, which has already been a well-examined concept in academia, and elaborates on its meaning and relevance in the context of the Bangladeshi political landscape.
What is a Political Settlement?
Since the fall of the Hasina Government in Bangladesh, leaders and activists of Gen Z revolution have been calling out for a new political settlement in Bangladesh. They reiterate the call on television talk shows and social media platforms and indicate that political settlement is akin to initiating a new political culture, where political parties will practice democracy first at their party levels. This settlement may also mean ratification of a new constitution that would ensure a check and balance in the government. Or simply, this means forming new political parties with a new vision, while replacing the old political malpractices.
However, such understanding and manifestation does not clearly outline the key elements and implications of the concept of political settlement. In academic discussion, the concept is primarily put to use in state-building, government reform, policy initiatives, and development outcomes. Scholars of political science, peace and conflict studies, policy analysis, and development economics keep discussing different aspects of the concept for decades.
The concept of political settlement has been widely used in academia since the early 1990s. In 2010, Bangladeshi-British economist Professor Mushtaq Khan first introduced it1 as a framework in development economics. At its core, political settlement refers to agreements on how power is distributed among different groups in a polity. These agreements shape a country’s institutions and impact political stability and economic growth.
Over time, scholars have refined the definition. As Kelsall and colleagues explain, political settlement is an “ongoing conflict-ending agreement” among a society's most “powerful groups” over “political and economic institutions” that generate “minimally acceptable benefits,” thereby preventing civil war and disorder 2. This definition emphasizes agreement among the most powerful groups in a society on several rules and institutions to ensure minimal acceptable benefits for all. The agreement might manifest as a constitution or a tacit understanding of mutual obligations, and the institutions can be a set of formal rules having a visible structure or informal rules and experience. The degree to which powerful groups maintain the rules/institutions and produce viable benefits for all signals the sustainability of the political settlement.
Who are the powerful groups, and on what institutions do they agree?
In a political settlement, the powerful groups entail the elites of the polity/state, such as belligerent/contending political organizations/revolutionary entities, business elites, mafias, civil societies, media, civil bureaucracy, and military. Since each party can bring mass disruption or disorder to a polity/state, excluding any of these entities in the agreement may fail to shape a sustaining settlement. The parties in the agreement agree to maintain political and economic institutions/rules such as parliament/congress, electoral system, court systems, and financial system. These institutions are expected to advance or protect the interest of powerful groups/elites through spiritual, religious, social, and material benefits, such as economic or power benefits. These institutions might not function well if any powerful entities use them for their own benefits, and such actions weaken the agreement and usher conflicts or violence. Thus, the agreement to end ongoing conflicts might not end the conflict or violence forever, but it can make it less severe and functional for a time.
Is the current situation in Bangladesh demand a political settlement?
A political settlement can take a shape after a revolution, a foreign conquest, secession of territories, independence from a colonial power, a coup, a democratic transition, or a peace agreement—when there is no agreement present in the polity which demands stability. Bangladesh has experienced the most significant mass uprising since its independence from Pakistan in 1971, that uprooted decades-long authoritarian regime and political scientists consider it a revolution. The fallen authoritarian regime left the state with a non-functional constitution and institutions. The political elites, civil societies, media, and business elites have disagreed on the constitution and state institutions for decades. Several, if not most, powerful groups in the state do not agree on the extant institutions such as the parliament, electoral system, criminal justice system, and law enforcement agencies. They do not believe the existing institutions ensure free and fair elections, make and implement policies, or establish justice. In this situation, a new political settlement is essential for bringing a functional constitution and building new institutions for the stability of the state.
Who can play a pivotal role for a new political settlement in Bangladesh?
In an ideal condition, the powerful groups in the state, such as the political organizations, media, civil society, business elites, civil bureaucracy, and the military, must collaborate to shape a political settlement. Historically, political organizations, military, civil bureaucracy, and foreign interest groups have played a crucial role in shaping a political settlement in Bangladesh. One or two political organizations or revolutionary entities mainly initiated an agreement manifested in a reformed constitution to rebuild the institutions. Other powerful groups have fully or tacitly agreed on the settlement. This time, it seems that those few powerful groups, who used to shape a political settlement in the past, will be steering the new political settlement. As usual, one or two political organizations will initiate agreements with other influential groups. The civil society elites, such as public intellectuals, media, and NGOs, will influence other influential groups in the new settlement. The strength of the new settlement will depend on the inclusivity of the various powerful groups in the agreement and the viability of minimal political and economic benefits for all groups. If the agreement, be it a new constitution or a reformed one, and the newly built or reformed institutions/rules fail to ensure benefits for several of the powerful groups, especially the political organizations, the military, the civil bureaucracy, and foreign interest groups, the new political settlement will be a vulnerable one.
About the Author: Muhammad Ashiqur Rab is a Ph.D. student in the Policy Studies program at Clemson University in South Carolina, USA. His research interests include politics, policy, governance, and health. He Can be reached at ashiqurrab@gmail.com
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect The Insighta's editorial stance. However, any errors in the stated facts or figures may be corrected if supported by verifiable evidence.
 | A guest post by
|
Very well written!!