SOLUTIONS FOR ELECTORAL VIOLENCE:CASE OF BANGLADESH

[SIZE=5]Addressing Violent Radicalization through Inclusive Politics
[/SIZE]
Political and social alienation have combined with government repression to push marginalized groups to violence. Therefore, efforts to prevent political violence in Bangladesh must target its weak democratic institutions, which foster exclusion, radicalization, and extremism.

The state is grounded in a long history. As part of Pakistan (1947–71), many ethnic Bengalis chafed under the control of a Punjabi-dominated, Urdu-speaking elite in the western half of the country. Bengalis constituted over half of Pakistan’s population and produced most of its economic output but were treated as culturally and politically inferior. This festering resentment grew into a declaration of independence in 1971. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his political party, the Awami League, led Bangladesh’s nationalist movement against Pakistan’s army, which had invaded to put down the insurrection. Over the course of nine months, Pakistan’s soldiers killed—according to the highest estimate—three million Bengalis, including the indiscriminate massacre of students and intellectuals. A mass rape campaign also brutalized approximately two hundred thousand women. The war came to a quick and decisive end two months after the intervention of India, which presided over Pakistan’s surrender to the newly formed nation of Bangladesh.

Bangladesh’s flawed democratic process feeds frustration and drives radicalization. Though radicalization and extremism have many causes—and traditional counterterrorism approaches have an important role to play—strengthening Bangladesh’s election institutions would enhance political inclusion and undermine the grievance-complex that bolsters radical recruitment. A recent evaluation of election-violence prevention tools conducted by the U.S. Institute of Peace has identified a set of weaknesses in Bangladesh’s electoral process that could be addressed as a way to prevent violent extremism and related conflict dynamics.

[ul]
[li]Security Sector Reform: Elements of the country’s police and army operate as political militias rather than provide nonpartisan security. Allegations of extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests, and opposition harassment damage the legitimacy of the democratic process. Efforts should be made to ensure a nonpartisan security sector.[/li][li]Election Management Reform:Bangladesh’s election commission is deeply partisan and ineffectual. This gives opposition parties little reason to trust the process or outcome of elections. The election commission needs to be given independent power and the necessary resources and be sheltered from partisan manipulation.[/li][li]Enhancing Democratic Norms: The peacebuilding community engages actively through violence prevention programs worldwide; however, these practices are almost entirely absent in Bangladesh. Civic education and youth-targeted trainings in particular could weaken support for extremism. Offering technical support to political parties and their student wings may also help create a more professional and inclusive political party system. Though institutional reforms are likely more pressing, peacebuilding programs can alter the attitudinal disposition toward violence over time.[/li][/ul]

1 Like

Well played Georgina Uwes. Well played. You can’t fool people all the times

1 Like

I have done my investigations. I refuse this con game.

@bjurmann been thinking thereis something much more you are following here…kila thread by @GeorginaMakena uko hapo commenting. What gives officer?