Is stability in Bangladesh possible without relying on pluralism?

A key dividing factor in South Asian politics is the tension between secularism and religion-driven ideologies. This is not an isolated phenomenon, as the global rise of far-right politics continues to fuel socio-political and cultural divisions. In theory, any sovereign South Asian nation, including Bangladesh, can choose to separate the state from religion or place religion at the center of governance. However, from a pragmatic perspective, prioritizing religious sentiments to (re)define culture or politics, or claiming that a particular religious belief is fundamental to the (re)formation of a state, is a risky strategy. Such approaches, which aim to shape a state based on religious sentiments, can create and perpetuate tensions and conflicts within society, particularly in the context of increasingly diverse, pluralistic and multicultural South Asian societies affected by globalization.

Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum have made insightful observations in their respective books Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny (2006) and The Internal Conflict: Democracy, Religious Violence and India’s Future (2007) about how democracy and religious beliefs can be in conflict with each other if they are not carefully discussed or promoted by the state and politics. They discuss the risks that countries like India face when they fail to embrace socio-cultural plurality or resist communal violence, thereby hindering national progress. The hope that both Sen and Nussbaum have for South Asia in general, and for India in particular, is that public discourse and cultural and historical tolerance of secular ideals can enable the emergence and persistence of one, despite various religious sentiments prevalent in the country robust democratic culture that welcomes pluralism in every possible way.

This is crucial because when we look at two major countries in the Middle East – Israel and Iran – it appears that both often impose their religious narratives on the public in order to maintain internal populist support. This has not brought peace or stability to either country. On the one hand, Israel, despite being militarily successful with the unconditional support of the United States and its allies, finds itself in endless conflict with its neighbors. On the other hand, Iran’s economy is crippled under heavy sanctions from the West. There is also an aggrieved population that does not necessarily support the current regime. Citizens actually don’t like the way they live their lives and instead want to exercise their democratic rights.

We also have the more extreme example of Iraq. When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, some may have hoped that the U.S. military would overthrow a dictator and rebuild the country with democratic ideals. However, Iraq has not recovered from the consequences of the US-led invasion over the past 20 years. Instead, it has become a place where extremist groups have emerged and thrived, threatening the fundamental hopes and aspirations of ordinary people. Nobody knows when or if the country will ever return to normality.

Looking at social media posts and debates in Bangladesh since August 5, it is clear that despite most ordinary people’s deep desire for freedom and equality, the country is witnessing a deluge of insensitive rhetoric. One group rejoices, believing they have the power to spread hate and incite violence, while the other group is deeply shocked and afraid that their freedoms are being curtailed by political threats, mob violence and acts of revenge. Even teachers, academics and artists were not spared and faced hostility and abuse on multiple fronts. Also worrying are the increasing number of dubious legal cases against some journalists, intellectuals and others, as well as clashes between law enforcement and garment workers.

We cannot assume that things will improve on their own, or that it is acceptable to turn a blind eye to problems that could affect the country’s long-term stability. My study on insensitive violence has made it clear that once a cycle of violence begins, it continues in various forms and will not stop unless major interventions are made in the spheres of the state and politics.

Following this, I argue that what Bangladesh currently needs is pluralism, rather than any particular ideology or belief system, to ensure its long-term stability. Only pluralism enables societies like ours to take diverse ideas, religions, ideologies and identities into account. In a society that celebrates pluralism, diverse actors and ideas can come together to find common ground for the development of a just state. It may not be perfect, but it can adequately serve all types of people with different beliefs.

However, such a state cannot be built on the lessons of countries like Israel or Iran, nor can it ignore the importance of different worldviews. Nor can this be achieved through ambiguities in political and governmental views, such as claiming that we seek religious supremacy while operating in a Western-style democracy. The mixing of such competing ideologies would lead to instability and chaos. Instead, a coherent vision of pluralism based on tolerance and reasoned debate is needed to improve the quality of life for all.

If we agree on pluralistic political and social ideals, we must reject both ambiguous and opportunistic political views and extremist positions in the name of reform. Otherwise, Bangladesh risks becoming entangled in isolationist ideas. For example, populist approaches such as opposing India based on communal sentiments rather than confronting India’s political and economic dominance or borrowing from the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund (IMF) without considering the long-term impact on citizens , hinder the real progress of Bangladesh. We must also recognize the need to reduce the geopolitical dominance of the West, which can only happen through collective political consensus. Here too, such consensus can only be achieved if we adopt pluralistic values ​​as our common political language and the activities associated with it.

As the world grapples with competing national interests, hyper-connectivity and the rise of artificial intelligence, it is short-sighted to get stuck in debates about whether a country should be led by narrow identity politics or by triggering political ambiguity or impractical ideas, to seize power. We can be proud that Bangladesh has historically been built on pluralistic ideals that emerged from the Language Movement of 1952 and the Liberation War of 1971. We cannot afford to hesitate to honor the pluralistic spirit and dignity of life either lost or destroyed in 1952 and 1971, which paved the way for our hard-won freedom on December 16, 1971.

It is a stark reminder that while the West, particularly the US and UK, exerts considerable influence on geopolitical issues in the Global South, these nations have managed to build relatively successful pluralistic societies, develop highly skilled workforces and become global leaders its technological advances. In the 21st century, Bangladesh should think forward, not backward, to resolve issues such as gender integration and the right of intellectuals to criticize authorities, while avoiding the use of narrow identity politics for political ambitions and gains. In conclusion, Bangladesh cannot risk being isolated from the global pluralist debate. Such isolation would only lead to more injustice and geopolitical domination, be it from its neighbors or the West.

Dr. Rashedur Chowdhury is Professor of Business Administration and Management at Essex University. He can be reached at [email protected].

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentary and analysis from experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our submission guidelines.