When a new country goes through many struggles with governmental problems, is it worth it to reestablish democracy when it has already been attempted and failed. When Bangladesh first gained independence in 1972 from Pakistan the original government was a parliamentary democracy. The first prime minister was Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. He made a state policy that stressed four basic principals: nationalism, secularism, socialism, and democracy. But soon Sheikh Mujibur Rahman used his voting majority to win a new constitutional amendment that limited the powers of the legislative and judicial branches. This new amendment established an executive presidency, and instituted a one-party system, the Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League (BAKSAL). During his reign nearly three million Bengalis were murdered and tortured. Around 400,000 women were also raped. Rahman and his family were eventually assassinated. His presidency helped his country’s economy, a little bit but did not significantly change the conditions of his country. The next ruler was Ziaur Rahman. Under President Ziaur Rahman, Bangladesh first experienced democracy. He began a new economic development program, emphasized family planning, and also established good relationships with the west and the oil rich countries of Islam. But it all came to an end when he was assassinated in 1981. President Ziaur transformed Bangladesh into a democratic constitutional government. Hussain Mohammed Ershad was the next president. Ershad suspended the constitution though and returned the country to a military government again. During his term a boycott broke out to destroy the election's credibility, guaranteeing further instability. It was led by President Ziaurs’s widow, Begum Khaleda Zia. Gareth Price, a leader in the boycott, said "The use of violence as a form of political negotiation seems certain to continue as polling day approaches. It is likely that whoever loses will claim the poll was rigged and protests will continue." On December 6, 1990, Hussain Mohammed Ershad resigned because he was forced to resign by a popular movement led by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Awami League. In 1991 democracy was reestablished by Khaleda Zia. She approved changes to the constitution that would help Bangladesh and re-created a parliamentary system. Under Khaleda Zia the state of Bangladesh’s economy steadily rose and ties with the west were strengthened. Since Khaleda Zia, the government has had social reforms, especially for improving the lives of women. During a recent election in Bangladesh a women named Tashkina Yeasmin said "I've come here half an hour before the polling began…there are already 200 women standing in lines." The citizens of Bangladesh are now happier and have came a long way since the beginning of the country. Was the re-establishment of democracy worth fighting for, even though so many problems had occurred? Democracy was definitely worth going after since the citizens were being treated so poorly. The well being of the country was improved by democracy and the country’s economy grew. The people of Bangladesh got a taste of democracy briefly during the presidency of Ziaur Rahman. After experienceing what it was like to live in a democratic society, the people continued to pursue this way of life and did not let rulers maintain power. They became represented and started to enjoy living in Bangladesh. There was a definite struggle when Bangladesh first became a country but the people pulled through and became independent from Pakistan.
560
560
Why was President Ziahur Rahman assassinated? I think it was a great idea how the people got a taste of democracy, so they could know what it is like to not be ruled unfairly.
ReplyDeleteThat isn't a girl.... baby.... its a man! But seriously, why would even go into womens rights at this time cosidering such more dramatic delemas at the time? It seems like they just don't know how to get there stuff together over there in the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that democracy is worth fighting for no matter what you have to go through because in the end having it is worth it also.
ReplyDeleteI agree that democracy is worth the fight. But shouldn't there be a limit?
ReplyDeleteI also agree that democracy is worth fighting for, but what about the people that don't want it? Is it worth fighting for then?
ReplyDelete