In Bangladesh’s current political context, one of the most significant and controversial development is the move to ban or suspend the activities of a major political party such as the Awami League. The interim government of Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus imposed the ban on all political activities of the Awami League in May last year. As a result,  the Awami League could not contest the Parliament polls held in February this year.

This is a situation similar to neighbouring Myanmar,  where the military junta recently organised parliament polls but barred 40 political parties from contesting. This included  the National League for Democracy ( NLD)  led by Aung San Suu Kyi which had won a sweeping mandate in the 2020 polls, after having ruled the country since 2015. 

So, though Bangladesh and Myanmar had elections, they are far from restoring democracy.  

The Awami League   , easily the largest mass party in Bangladesh,  has hit back strongly at reports that the newly-formed government of Bangladesh Nationalist Party

 ( BNP) may continue the ban imposed by the Yunus government.  ” Can there be democracy in India if the Congress is banned just because it is not in power or democracy in US if the Democrats are banned,” said Awami League spokesperson Rokeya Prachy, an award-winning actress turned politician. 

The Awami League led the Bengali struggle for autonomy in Pakistan and then spearheaded Bangladesh’s freedom struggle in 1971. Later, it ruled Bangladesh for half of its post-independence history until it was ousted from power by a mass agitation in August 2024.

The legal basis cited for the ban on Awami is the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2009—particularly Section 18. The Awami League government is blamed for a police crackdown against the 2024 mass agitation , but not for any specific acts of terror. This raises a critical question: is this a justified application of the law, or a politically motivated misuse of legal authority?

To address this, it is important to first understand the law itself. Section 18 of the Anti-Terrorism Act allows the government to declare an organization banned if it is “satisfied” that the group is involved in or supports terrorist activities. The phrase “government’s satisfaction” is key—it grants broad discretionary power to the executive. While such flexibility can be necessary in urgent security situations, it also creates significant room for subjective interpretation and, potentially, misuse.

From the government’s perspective, the justification may rest on concerns about national security, law and order, or allegations of violence. In many countries, specialized anti-terrorism laws exist precisely because conventional criminal laws are often insufficient to deal with organized violence, financing networks, or covert operations. In that sense, the existence of such a law is not inherently problematic.

However, the controversy intensifies when such a provision is applied to a long-established political party. Declaring a major political force as being involved in terrorism is an extraordinarily serious claim. It demands not only strong and credible evidence but also a transparent process, independent investigation, and clear accountability. Without these elements, the decision risks being perceived as politically driven rather than legally justified.

Some critics draw parallels with the Bush Doctrine, where authority determines perceived threats and takes preemptive action. The comparison highlights a shared concern: when power is concentrated and discretion is broad, the line between security and overreach can become blurred. However, an important distinction remains—domestic legal decisions, unlike international military actions, are subject to judicial review. This makes the role of the judiciary crucial in determining the legality and legitimacy of such measures.

This brings us to a fundamental issue: the relationship between law and justice. In a democratic system, laws are not merely instruments of control—they are meant to ensure fairness and accountability. If laws are used to suppress political opposition, they undermine public trust and weaken democratic institutions. Conversely, if any organization—political or otherwise—is genuinely involved in violence or terrorism, then the state has a duty to act decisively.

Therefore, the core issue is not simply whether the Anti-Terrorism Act should exist, but how it is structured and applied.

There are three possible approaches to this dilemma. One is to repeal the law entirely, arguing that its broad provisions make it inherently prone to abuse. However, this risks leaving the state without adequate tools to address real security threats. 

Another approach is to maintain the law in its current form, which may offer administrative convenience but raises serious concerns about unchecked power and declining public trust.

The most balanced path lies in reform. This would involve clearly defining the evidentiary standards required to ban an organization, limiting the scope of executive discretion, ensuring independent and impartial investigations, and mandating timely judicial review of any such decision. Additional oversight mechanisms—whether parliamentary or institutional—could further reduce the risk of misuse.

In light of this, the debate over applying Section 18 to a major political party is not merely a legal question. It is a broader test of Bangladesh’s commitment to justice, democratic norms, and the rule of law. What is most needed in this moment is transparency, accountability, and the consistent, impartial application of legal principles.

In the end, the strength of a law lies not in its severity, but in its fairness. Whether this decision will be remembered as a just and necessary action or as a controversial misuse of power will depend entirely on how faithfully those principles are upheld.

The apprehensions about the BNP government continuing the ban on Awami League may help it keep a formidable rival from the national political scene but it will only end up weakening the tottering democratic edifice in Bangladesh.  

© Eurasia Review