Hasina’s Playbook: The prelude

Ousted prime minister Sheikh Hasina was smarter than her political rivals gave her credit for. At least for a while. 

After all, she managed to cling onto power far longer than her opponents or people in Bangladesh had any right to expect. 

This made one thing clear: she had plenty of tricks up her sleeve.

One thing Hasina always kept an eye on was updating and upgrading her playbook. To adapt to crises, she would constantly implement new tactics all geared towards her political survival while adapting to changing geopolitical and domestic situations. 

The 7 January election was yet another litmus test for Hasina. 

It was an eventful occasion to be sure, but also one which was unique: under her leadership, Bangladesh became the first country in the world to elect a new government in early 2024. The year appeared to be the biggest election year in history as more than 2 billion voters were set to go to the polls in at least 64 countries in the same period.

But Bangladesh could not set an example of an election which was even moderately accepted by all. 

Any reasonable mind anywhere in the world would always refuse to accept the 7 January polls as a good election. 

Afterwards, many countries and organisations in their statements concluded that the election was neither fair nor free. 

The last parliamentary polls held in Bangladesh will then go down in history as an indelible stain, an unpleasant dark spot on the country's face. 

Bangladesh may even be blamed in future studies by political scientists and human rights activists for tainting the beginning of the global election year.

At the cost of tarnishing the country's image – something she had firmly warned everyone else against – Hasina defied mounting international pressure, including from the US, to hold a free and fair elections, efficiently manipulating the polls according to her own playbook.

While the elections were panned widely in the western world, China, Russia, India and some other countries from the global south rushed to congratulate Hasina on the win, extending their support.

This was the same support that had helped Hasina weather western pressure in the lead up to the polls. 

The US and some other western countries refrained from congratulating her immediately, instead questioning the fairness of the polls. 

They later expressed support and hopes of being able to work together with the government formed following the election manipulated in favour of the party in power led by Sheikh Hasina. 

So, the regime that staged a manipulated election got endorsement by other countries for another five years. 

How Hasina reached the Everest summit of powers  

After being sworn in as the new prime minister for the fourth consecutive term, Hasina reached new heights, exceeding the records of Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel and Chandrika Kumaratunga—four other female leaders widely known globally.

Hasina, the 76-year-old Bangladesh leader, became the prime minister in 1996 and served till 2001, and again returned to power by winning the 2008 election, which was largely accepted. 

While Hasina's fourth term meant she had exceeded her storied company, her playbook was different from the ones used by other female leaders across the globe.

Hasina reached extraordinary heights, but her success was mired in widespread controversy. 

She led her party Awami League to win five parliamentary elections since she took the helm of the Awami League in early 1980s following the brutal assassination of her father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.

Of the five wins, three were stage-managed and all three were held under her government. 

She led her party to win only two parliamentary elections in 1996 and 2008 which were held by a nonpartisan election time government and largely considered to be free and fair. 

In the 2014 election, her administration ensured the win of 153 MPs uncontested, which was more than half of the total parliamentary constituencies upped for the election and it was also the magic number needed to form the government. 

The main opposition BNP-led opposition alliance boycotted the election as it was held under the Hasina government that scrapped the non-partisan election time government three years before the polls. 

The BNP led alliance had demanded the resignation of Hasina in order for the 2014 polls to be held under a non-partisan election time government. 

As their demand was rejected, the opposition alliance announced that they would resist the polls. 

In face of vigorous street protests which turned violent, it was difficult for Hasina's administration to hold voting in 300 constituencies across the country at a time. So, she devised the strategy for an uncontested election.

Five years down the line in 2018, she assured the opposition parties that the election would be held in a free and fair manner under her government. The BNP-led opposition alliance agreed to join the election. 

But Hasina had already installed a new mechanism of election engineering. In most of the constituencies, ballot papers were stuffed the previous nights and the AL emerged victorious winning more than two-thirds of the parliamentary seats.

In violation of the electoral code of conduct, plastic-laminated election campaign posters are hung along a street at Khilgaon in Dhaka. Similar laminated posters are being used in many areas in the capital and elsewhere in the country ahead of upcoming national polls. The photo was taken in January, 2024. Photo: Rajib Dhar

The midnight rigging by ruling party men was efficiently guarded by the gamut of the country's security forces – the army, police and BGB – who are paid by taxpayers and duty bound to serve people and protect their rights, not to engage in midnight antics with forces to snatch people's fundamental rights to decide who would run the country on their behalf and for their welfare.

Four years later, the BNP and other opposition parties intensified their street protests for the restoration of a non-partisan election time government before the January parliamentary polls.  

The announcement of the US visa policy in May appeared to be a big push for the opposition parties. 

The US announced that it would impose visa restrictions on those responsible for undermining democratic elections. With Bangladesh approaching the election, the political dispute over the method of a polls' time government remained unresolved, prompting the European Union to decide that it would not send a full pledged election mission to observe the January national polls.

In the third week of September, the USA announced that it would enforce visa restrictions on individuals within the Bangladesh law enforcement, the ruling party, and the political opposition – individuals "responsible for, or complicit in, undermining the democratic election process in Bangladesh".

These individuals and their immediate family members may be barred from entering the US, said a press statement issued by the US Department of State on 22 September. 

Besides, additional persons found complicit in undermining the election may also be found ineligible for US visas under this policy in the future, it stated.

Mounting pressure, search for friends

The pressure on the Hasina government kept mounting. 

But China and Russia publicly extended their support to the Hasina government for holding the election according to the current constitutional provision. 

They also joined the bandwagon of the ruling party to blast the USA for "interfering" in the Bangladesh election. 

India, on the other hand, initially did not make a public buzz, but it kept extending its support to the Hasina government. 

It is now common knowledge that it was because of India's opposition that the USA refrained from taking a hardline even after imposing the first batch of visa restrictions under the new visa policy.  

Later, Delhi made it publicly clear that Bangladesh's election was its internal affairs and it did not agree with the USA's position.  

In fact, Bangladesh seems to have appeared a proxy battleground for the global superpowers before the last election. Sheikh Hasina joined the BRICS conference in August amid western pressure for holding a free and fair election and expressed her interest that Bangladesh wanted to join the bloc considered as a counter to the US-led global order.

The support from India, China and Russia— three founding members of the BRICS – helped her to go ahead with her playbook to hold the 7 January parliamentary election regardless of opposition parties joining it or not.

More than three months before the January polls the European Union in a letter sent to the Election Commission on 21 September, 2023 informed the EC that it would not send a full-fledged election observation mission during the national polls as it considered the environment in Bangladesh to not be conducive to observe elections. 

Its decision was based on the assessment of the six-member EU exploratory mission that visited Bangladesh in January and July, 2023 and held meetings with a range of stakeholders including the Election Commission, officials of the ministries of home, law, information, foreign affairs, and Chattogram Hill Tracts affairs, law enforcers, civil society groups, and journalists. 

Visiting European Union (EU) Election Exploratory Mission held a meeting with the officials of the Human Rights Commission in July, 2003.

The EU Parliament in September passed a resolution expressing concern over mass arrests of opposition representatives and excessive use of force against protesters. It called on the government to guarantee the conditions for free, fair, and participatory elections in 2024. 

In the following months, the United Nations (UN) and USA repeatedly called for a free, fair and intimidation-free election in Bangladesh. 

Hot on the heels of the diplomatic push, Hasina came up with a new edition of her playbook as the BNP and some other opposition parties stuck to their guns and refused to join any election under Hasina's government. 

In response, her government put top opposition leaders behind bars. 

To make up the numbers, more than two dozen small parties were enticed to join the polls.

Their top leaders were reportedly assured that they would be given support to win the polls.  

Thus, the number of contesting parties in the polls increased, making it a numbers game. 

But none of the small parties was able to win any seat independently. Hasina knew well about their strength. 

She knew she needed to become more innovative. 

To make the election competitive, she allowed her party leaders to contest the election as independent candidates ignoring the party's charter which considered this a violation. 

The policy worked like magic. Sixty of the AL leaders were elected as independent MPs. 

On the other hand, the Jatiya Party that was forced to join the polls only managed to win 11 seats.

Later in April, Jatiya Party chairman Ghulam Mohammad Quader told his party men that the party was preparing to boycott the election but it could not do so under pressure. 

Similar things happened to the Jatiya Party in the 2014 election too. Then Jatiya Party chief HM Ershad announced to boycott the election like the BNP-led opposition alliance. But he was not allowed to do so. 

The then Indian foreign secretary flew into Dhaka and met Ershad and pursued him not to quit the electoral race. Ershad made it public that the Indian foreign secretary had told him that fundamentalist forces would rise if he boycotted the polls. 

Ershad was forced to take admission to the combined military hospital in Dhaka cantonment and stayed there until the election was over.

Unlike 2014 polls, no one elected uncontested in the 2024 election. 

Two months before the election, the government crackdown on the opposition leaders and detained a large number of senior leaders and mid ranking leaders in old political cases and put them behind the bars. 

The opposition were deprived of leaders who could launch street agitation.

Many of them were also accused in new cases in connection with an October rally violence in the capital.  The October violence was a culmination of the confrontational nature of the ruling party's politics. Whenever the BNP announced any street agitation programmes, the army of ruling Awami League were always on the streets to keep the streets under their control.  

This plan worked. 

Sheikh Hasina takes oath for fourth consecutive term in January, 2024. Photo: UNB

The election, though it was one-sided and boycotted by BNP and opposition parties, was largely peaceful. 

The US visa policy announced in May contributed to keeping the political situation non-violent in the run up to the elections. 

However, the election recorded poor turnout of voters as much before the election date, Hasina's party ensured easy win of more than 200 out of 300 seats in absence of strong challengers. 

To many political analysts the election had more or less been an endeavour to search for an opposition party. 

The St Martin's Island diversion

The sudden imposition of the visa policy by the USA in the last week of May appeared to be a big blow for the government policymakers and senior leaders and rank and file of the party in power as well as boosting morale of the opposition camp. 

Hasina then came up with a masterstroke, setting a defiant tone in face of US pressure.  

On 3 June, she said it doesn't matter if no one takes a 20-hour flight across the Atlantic to go to the US. 

"There are many other oceans and continents in the world. We will make friends with those continents across the other oceans. Our economy will be stronger, more developed and vibrant," she said. 

"We will not be dependent on others. It's no use worrying about who will not issue us visas or who will impose sanctions on us," she told her party men while inaugurating a new office building for the Dhaka District Awami League in the capital's Tejgaon. 

Her party's leaders repeated the same chorus whenever they were asked about the restrictions.  

Party's general secretary Obaidul Quader, also a minister of her cabinet, on 6 June in a written statement said the Awami League and the government were not afraid of the visa policy of the United States as they always respect the constitution, democracy, human rights and rule of law.

On 21 June in a press conference, Hasina firmly stated that she would not resort to selling any national assets or compromising the country's sovereignty to stay in power.

"I don't want to return to power by leasing out St Martin's Island," she said in a press conference at the Ganobhaban over the outcome of her recent visits to Switzerland and Qatar.

She did not name any country interested in taking lease of Saint Martin's Island, but the implication wasn't missed.

The Saint Martin's Island line was repeated by other leaders, many openly naming the US.

Rashed Khan Menon, in parliament, asserted that the US was after the island and that the new US visa policy was part of a strategy for "regime change".

"The US wants Saint Martin's Island and they want Bangladesh in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue [Quad]. They are doing everything to destabilise the current government," he said.

On June 27 the US Department of State rejected all allegations in regard to taking over Saint Martin's Island in Bangladesh.

The-then PM Hasina tells a press conference that she will not resort to selling any national assets or compromising the country's sovereignty to stay in power. Photo: PID

During a press conference on 27 June, Matthew Miller, spokesperson for the US Department of State, asserted that the United States has never engaged in any discussions regarding taking control of St Martin's Island or has any intention to do so.

This, however, was not the first time that such concerns surfaced centring Saint Martin's Island.

Previously in 2003, the then US Ambassador Mary Ann Peters ruled out media speculation where it was being said that Washington was desperate to lease a military base from Dhaka to station its forces somewhere between the Far and Middle East(s).

"The United States has no plans, no requirement, and no desire for a military base on St. Martin's Island, Chittagong, or anywhere else in Bangladesh," she said, on 2 July 2003, in a public programme.

Referring to previous governments' actions, the prime minister on the June 21 press conference drew attention to the circumstances under which the BNP came to power in 2001, alleging that the party had promised to sell gas reserves.

"The BNP came to power in 2001 by giving undertakings to sell gas. Now they want to sell the country. They want to come to power through undertaking to sell St Martin's," she said.

However, there is no record of either selling or exporting gas to any country during the five-year term. 

Amid the escalation of war of words, the US Department of State announced on 22 September that they had started implementing visa restrictions on individuals deemed to have undermined the democratic election process in Bangladesh.

On 25 September Inspector General of Police (IGP) Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun, who was placed under US sanction in 2021 when he was DG of Rab, expressed confidence that the police's image will not suffer due to the US visa policy, stating, "I don't think that the police image will suffer because of the US visa policy."   

"I do not think it [US visa policy] will cause any harm to the image of police," he said in response to questions from journalists. Just a month later at the end of October instructed by the government, the police administration launched a clampdown on the opposition leader and activists. 

India's role, Russia's warning

With the US repeatedly portraying the visa policy as an instrument for holding a free and fair election, India remained silent.

On May 27, in an online explainer The Indian Express said the US position on the Bangladesh elections could complicate India's diplomacy in Bangladesh. 

New Delhi wanted Hasina back in power and thus would prefer keeping silent on the linking of the US visa policy in Bangladesh to free and fair elections in the country, it read.

Indian English daily, The Telegraph, on June 15, in an online article focused on India and China's position on Bangladesh's upcoming election, said Beijing had beaten New Delhi in the race to stand by the Hasina-led government in its latest face-off with the US as Hasina won public appreciation for her anti-US comments from a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson.

After the announcement of the US new visa policy for Bangladeshis, India's lack of comment was glaring. 

But there was speculation that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi would discuss the Bangladesh issue during his meeting with Joe Biden on 22 June. 

On 10 November, Indian Foreign Secretary Vinay Kwatra told a press conference in New Delhi that India "respects the democratic process in Bangladesh."

"When it comes to developments in Bangladesh, elections in Bangladesh, it is their domestic matter. It is for the people of Bangladesh to decide their future," Kwatra said, describing India "as a close friend and partner" of Bangladesh.

Such remarks were not in conformity with what India had done before the 2014 parliamentary election, where the country had an active role in discussions with the opposition party, convincing JaPa chief HM Ershad not to pull out from the electoral race. 

Within hours of the comments by Kwatra, former Bangladesh foreign secretary Md Touhid Hossain told news channel, Desh TV News, that India's stance would bring relief to the Hasina-led AL government.

"They were possibly in some dilemma because they weren't sure if India was backing them. It is also possible that they already knew of India's support. In any case, [the government] would feel relieved with India's response," Hossain said.

The USA, however, made its stance clear as on 13 November, US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu, dispatched letters calling for "dialogue without preconditions" among three major parties – the Awami League, the BNP and the Jatiya Party.

In response the ruling AL stated that engaging in dialogue with opposition parties was currently not feasible due to time constraints.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova in 15 December warns that in the event of US dissatisfaction with the results of the people's vote, attempts at further destabilisation of the situation in Bangladesh along the lines of the "Arab Spring" are likely.

Russia, on the other hand, insisted that then US Ambassador Peter Haas was interfering in Bangladesh's internal political affairs.

Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on 22 November claimed in an embassy brief that the then US Ambassador to Bangladesh Peter Haas had met with a high-ranking representative of the local opposition at the end of October and reportedly discussed plans to organise mass anti-government protests.

The Russian spokeswoman also claimed that the American ambassador promised information support in the event that the authorities used force against participants in "peaceful demonstrations", and that these assurances were purportedly made on behalf of the embassies of the United States, Britain, Australia and several other countries.

China also criticised the US for interfering in Bangladesh's election. The deepening relationship between China and Hasina-led Bangladesh -- whose location on the Bay of Bengal made it an important partner for the US Indo-Pacific strategy -- did not sit well with Washington.

When all else fails, attention is turned to shaping public perception.

The US sanctions on Rab officials in December 2021 effectively stopped the extra-judicial killings by the elite force and the police as well. 

The US visa policy announced in May worked like a tonic to reduce street violence in past months. Bangladesh politics had never been peaceful before the election.   

The US Presidential Memorandum was rolled out on 16 November. The US said it would work to "hold accountable those who threaten, intimidate, attack union leaders, labor rights defenders, labor organisations – including using things like sanctions, trade penalties and visa restrictions" – all the tools in their kit.

Labour rights, given its close links to Bangladesh's all important garments industry, was an ace.

And it was another warning of the need for a peaceful and credible election.

Hasina and her party's senior leaders always kept promising that the election would be free and fair. 

But her playbook was not a secret.

The one-woman show

On 14 December, The Economist in a report titled "Sheikh Hasina's party is set to be re-elected in January: The Bangladeshi leader has hounded her opponents" said "the 76-year-old prime minister has assailed Bangladeshi democracy with impunity." 

On 31 December the headline of a BBC report said it all: "Bangladesh: The election that has turned into a one-woman show."

The election in real sense was what the BBC report called the "one-woman show." It was none other than Sheikh Hasina who was the "one-woman" having her own playbook. 

She did not face any major hurdle at home as she enjoyed absolute control over everything.

By holding the 7 January election Sheikh Hasina proved herself 'unbeaten' and 'unstoppable' as her party General Secretary Obaidul Quader on 26 September claimed that Hasina cannot be stopped by issuing visa policy and sanctions.

The other woman Khaleda Zia, archrival of Sheikh Hasina, was in the mean time disqualified from doing politics and contesting election. She landed in jail in February 2018 in a corruption case. She was sentenced to jail in another corruption case later. 

During the pandemic she was released from the prison on the government executive order and began living at her Gulshan residence, which apparently turned into a sub-jail. 

After she was convicted in graft case, her elder son Tarique Rahman, who was sent exile in 2018 by the then army backed caretaker government and has been living in London since, was made acting chief of the BNP. 

Tarique was also convicted and sentenced to life in the August 21 grenade attack case as he was accused of plotting to assassinate Sheikh Hasina when she was leader of the opposition in 2004. 

Constitutionally, the cabinet led by Sheikh Hasina was collectively responsible to the parliament. But her party's brute majority since the 2008 election made the parliament dysfunctional. 

Hasina's government was also accused of controlling the judiciary. 

Hasina was by all accounts an all-powerful prime minister. 

Bangladesh had never before seen such a powerful chief executive of the country. 

On her return to power for the second time in 2009 after a break of around eight years, Sheikh Hasina took control of every pillar of the state – be it parliament, judiciary or civil and military bureaucracy. 

None of them dared to question and challenge the style of her leadership.

Former chief justice SK Sinha is still a glaring example of facing consequences for questioning the style of Hasina's governance system. 

In 2017 then chief justice of Bangladesh justice SK Sinha led the Appellate Division of Bangladesh Supreme Court to scrap a constitutional amendment brought by Sheikh Hasina government to empower the parliament to impeach Supreme Court judges on grounds of gross misconduct and physical incapacity.

Before the constitutional amendment, the power was exercised by a supreme judicial council led by chief justice and other senior judges of the appellate division. 

In the verdict, Justice Sinha strongly criticised the style of governance by the Sheikh Hasina led government. He was forced to resign and left the country following a judicial coup staged by his fellow judges who were called at Bangabhaban by the president and handed over a list of alleged corruptions by Justice Sinha. 

The judges then made a statement that they would not sit with Justice Sinha on the bench. 

Until scrapping the constitutional amendment, the government was happy with Justice Sinha who led the apex court to upheld some verdicts against war criminals. 

Justice Sinha was also in favour of scrapping the constitutional provision for non-partisan election time government.        

In contrast, the chief justice who led the appellate division to scrap the non-partisan caretaker government in 2011 was rewarded and given the chairman post of the Bangladesh Law Commission since his retirement in the same year. 

Justice Sinha and two other judges of the seven-members' Appellate division bench who supported Justice Khairul Haque to declare the caretaker government system illegal were made chief justices later. 

Other three judges who were in favour of retaining the nonpartisan election time government system for the betterment of the country's electoral democracy either were superseded or not rewarded with any appointment after their retirement. 

The lower judiciary was also almost under the complete control of the government. 

Opposition leaders were detained and placed behind bars and the lower courts were quick to deny bail. 

Some BNP senior leaders including Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir and Amir Khasru Mahmud Chowdhury who were leading the anti-government street protests were released on bail only after the election was over.  

The apex court allegedly remained silent when the constitutional rights of the citizens were trampled again during the January parliamentary election. 

The apex court earlier rejected two petitions challenging the legality of the uncontested election of 153 MPs in 2014 election and taking oath of MPs elected in 2018 'midnight election' before expiry the tenure of the previous parliament formed through 2014 one-sided elections.

The war against Dr Yunus

Noble Laureate Dr Muhammad Yunus became an object of Hasina's ire very early on.

He became a victim of the excessive politicised judiciary. He was entangled in many cases filed against him in recent years.

Last year in August over 170 global leaders, including more than 100 Nobel laureates, wrote an open letter to then prime minister Sheikh Hasina demanding immediate halt to the ongoing judicial proceedings against Professor Muhammad Yunus.

Despite global outcry against harassing him, the government remained adamant and claimed the law would take its own course.

Cheif Adfviser Dr Yunus. File Photo: Reuters

PM Hasina in a press conference responded harshly, accusing the 83-year-old Nobel laureate of "begging" for an international statement. 

She added that she welcomed international experts to assess the ongoing legal proceedings against Prof Yunus.

While much of the Western world lauds Prof Yunus for his pioneering use of microloans, Hasina regarded the 83-year-old as a public enemy. 

She repeatedly described Prof Yunus as a "bloodsucker" of the poor and accused his Grameen Bank of charging exorbitant interest rates.

In January before the parliamentary election, a court in Bangladesh sentenced the Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus to six months in jail for violating the country's labour laws.

As many as 242 global leaders including 125 Nobel laureates in an open letter at the end of January to Sheikh Hasina proposed sending a team of independent legal experts to review cases filed against Dr Yunus under labour law as well as an investigation being conducted by the Anti-Corruption Commission.

Expressing profound concern over the continued harassment and potential jailing of Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus, the open letter termed the trial process against Nobel laureate Dr Yunus as 'travesty of justice'.

Former UN secretary general Ban Ki Moon, former US president and Nobel laureate Barak Obama, former vice president Al Gore, and former secretary of state Hilary Clinton featured among the signatories.

Hasina's government paid little heed to the global leaders' call.

A 'complete mess'

Political analysts say democracy no longer dies in the hands of military rulers. In modern times, elected leaders appear to be authoritarian rulers by abusing state institutions and electoral systems.  

Was PM Hasina's rule comparable to the military dictators of Bangladesh? When military rulers had grabbed the state powers twice through declaration of the martial laws, they grabbed the all state powers-- executive, legislative and judicial.

The constitution, the supreme law of the land, was made subservient to martial law regulations. 

The rulers themselves were the source of all powers. 

One of the military rulers, Gen Ziaur Rahman even amended the constitution in exercising his law making authority. Other ruler General HM Ershad suspended the entire constitution for years. 

Both Gen Zia and Gen Ershad gradually grabbed the presidency to rule the country like an elected president as the country at that time had a presidential form of the government. 

After securing the presidency, they gradually allowed parts of the constitution to take effect which suited the president in uniform. Then they formed their own political parties and organised parliamentary elections to constitute a new parliament. Their parties won landslide wins in the elections. Both later forced the parliament to amend the constitution to ratify and validate the entire wrongdoings they and their regime committed during the martial law. Once they were indemnified by the constitutional amendment, they lifted the martial law.

Hasina's regime, however, did not face much political protest in the previous five years leading to the 7 January election even after holding the "midnight election" in 2018. 

Everything was in her firm grip. And her government was facing no major street agitation after 7 January polls. 

The Hasina government also had complete control over all state institutions and Hasina held absolute power. 

And blunt abuse of the institutions for the partisan and individual gains gave birth to a hybrid regime in Bangladesh coupled with crony capitalism.   

The consequences of the unchecked rise of Hasina banking on three staged managed elections was disastrous. 

Bangladesh suffered from a severe governance crisis. Human rights and freedom of press were hit hard with the rise of draconian cyber laws which were accused of muzzling dissenting voices. 

The Bangladeshi media was in a precarious situation. Self-censorship prevailed, steeled by fear of reprisal.

Unbridled corruption was pervasive everywhere in the government administration and the fragile financial sector was plagued by the mountain of non-performing loans pushing the economy on the brink of collapse. 

The government had little control over the rising crony capitalism. In crony capitalism every one either in power or close to the powerful people are the biggest beneficiary of the current regime. 

Thus the beneficiaries of the system were in favour of keeping the regime undisturbed. 

That has made it easy for Hasina to manipulate the January parliamentary election too like the previous two other general elections.  

The worst victim of crony capitalism was the country's financial sector as they were used as vehicles for reaching the goal of financial oligarchy under crony capitalism. 

Toxic assets in the banking and non-banking financial institutions kept increasing. 

As we take stock, it is feared the amount may exceed an eye-watering Tk5.5 trillion.

When financial capital becomes concentrated in the hands of a few, monopolies extract supernormal profits at the cost of the welfare of the ordinary population.

People felt the heat of bad governance. Inflation remained high for more than a year. 

The policymakers, meanwhile, kept telling people about the high ambitious goals to become an upper middle income country by 2031 and a developed nation by 2041. 

Building mega infrastructures with abnormal escalation of cost became the hallmark of the developments. 

The ground reality was that the economy was gloomy and facing a severe slowdown and there were no strong signs of a quick recovery.

The one-woman show was stagnating, but its influence did not wane. 

It would all come to a head soon enough. 

Read an in-depth look at what happened in May in tomorrow's edition of Hasina's Playbook!