Dhaka: Former Bangladeshi president and military strongman Hussain Mohammad Ershad, who died on Sunday, July 14, was a compromise between the two camps of the Cold War period and the regional power of India. Seizing power in 1982 and ruling Bangladesh till he was forced to step down in 1990, Ershad gave all external powers the assurance of control and stability that they sought. With so many of its states facing secessionist movements, the regional power could not have tolerated instability on the other side its own borders.Although in hindsight, Ershad’s reign may appear less violent than it really was and therefore, much better and benign, we cannot forget that it was deeply damaging for Bangladesh’s polity. Almost all of what the country sees and experiences in its political sphere now had its beginning during his rule.Unlike his two predecessors, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Ziaur Rahman, Ershad was a man with absolutely no legitimacy and zero credibility. Though he founded the Jatiya Party as the vehicle for his political ambitions, he did not subscribe to any political ideology and was not known for stand by any platform or set of principles.Also read: How Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s 1971 Speech Became Part of the World’s HeritageAfter eight years as president, he also had nothing to show as an achievement. In those days, his approach comprised attempts to appear as a saviour of the nation even when there was no crisis in sight. His amateurish methods were as laughable then as they are now. The propaganda of his time was cartoonish at best. The more he attempted to fine-tune it, the funnier it got.Predictably, especially for a man of his standing, it was imperative that he build a dominant coalition of his own that could help consolidate his power. The manner in which he went about it perhaps ended up defining the Bangladeshi way of politics for good.Under Ershad, the path to modernisation with a more inclusive growth pattern that the country had hoped for fell by the wayside and was replaced by a model that ensured maximum benefit for a small group of businessmen, service men, bureaucrats and, regrettably, the educated elite. The culture of openly buying and selling political allegiance and auctioning off commercial licenses began in his time.The later regimes tweaked the model to appease and please whoever they needed to impress. Unfortunately for the electorate, they were often the very last party in that particular pecking order.Ershad also came with an added burden — that of having huge grass-root level organisations which could be extended to accommodate more and more people. Here, while Ershad distributed his blank cheques discreetly, those who were below him simply could not or were emboldened enough by the people’s mandate to not want to maintain this shroud of secrecy.Also read: Is the Strategic Partnership With China Luring Bangladesh into a Debt Trap?As a natural consequence, in terms of both law and order and corruption, there were visible signs of deterioration and a culture of impunity was born.It is impossible to deny that ever since Ershad’s time in power, brazenness became a part of the Bangladeshi political leadership. Leaders with concrete ideologies took up his brand of “realism” and developed a mindset devoted to surviving in power. Leaders looked at people’s mandates as tickets to do whatever they wanted.Paradoxically, those who met Ershad in person would always consider him as one of the most humble and charming men they had ever met. His continued political existence (and relevance) normalised his position in public memory. Youngsters now believe in the misconception that he was indeed humble and charming. How much of this misconception is due to the failure of subsequent leadership is hard to tell but little do these people know that the political sphere in which they live now is defined forever by Ershad’s extreme insecurities and opportunism.Nayel Rahman is a Bangladeshi political analyst.
