The quest for legitimacy: What can the student leaders do? 

After the introduction of democracy in 1991, we have always tried to emphasise establishing an electoral democracy, operating under the assumption that a free and fair election would solve all problems. In doing so, we never really understood the significance of rewriting the 'rules of the game' or reforming key democratic institutions. We followed the logic of 'path dependency,' where each step towards ignoring institution-building further solidified our journey down that path. 

As successive regimes followed the same path, the cost of choosing an alternative route (or a new path) became so high that we never considered reverting to institutional rebuilding.

The July Uprising has opened a new window of opportunity, and the country is now at a critical juncture. An interim government is in power, promising a new democratic republic that will forever end the pathway to autocratic rule. However, it is important to note that the current government's legitimacy ultimately depends on the legitimacy of the student movement and its leaders. 

The political events of 1/11 provided us with an opportunity to reject 'increasing return,' but eventually, we decided to rely on the 'goodwill' of political parties. Consequently, the narrow 'window of opportunity' closed, and a new government led by the Awami League (AL) started rewriting the 'rules of the game,' ignoring their commitments. 

These new rules were specifically designed to establish an autocracy, notably with the abolition of the Caretaker Government (CTG). Interestingly, this new path towards autocracy and totalitarianism began under a 'democratic government' which used its brute majority to establish a one-party rule. 

Once the AL-led government embarked on this new path, there was no turning back—a personalistic cult was established, opposing voices were heavily crushed, political space for rights-based organisations and the media was shrunk, and a coalition was formed to serve the loyalists. 

A democratic path was no longer available to end that regime.

Even though the July Uprising was an uprising where equal credit must go to the students of both public and private universities, garment workers, and transportation workers —the masses— the student leaders have assumed the role of reflecting the voice of the people. 

Therefore, the possibility of implementing the 'state reform' relies on the legitimacy of the student leaders, as they have intentionally decided to lend that legitimacy to the interim government. Thus, the question arises—how can they maintain legitimacy? In my opinion, the following points are important:

First of all, the fact that the interim government's legitimacy relies on the student leaders is encouraging the government to allow the students to participate in the governing process, even where they shouldn't be involved. 

For instance, maintaining law and order is not the students' job, nor is it their responsibility to get involved in administrative matters. By involving the students, the government and the bureaucracy have created a trap—where the failures and limitations of the government can and will be blamed on the students. 

Right now, the movement cannot detach itself from those who are part of the government, but the rest should gradually create a respectable distance from the interim government and embrace the role of a pressure group.

Even though the July Uprising was an uprising where equal credit must go to the students of both public and private universities, garment workers, and transportation workers —the masses— the student leaders have assumed the role of reflecting the voice of the people. 

Secondly, and in my opinion most importantly, the student leaders must find a common ground to mobilise the students to legitimise their authority. For now, it is essential that they set aside questions related to national ideologies or national identity formation. I want to clarify here that I do not consider these issues irrelevant or unimportant. 

Instead, these are very important questions that should be dealt with properly and in the right forum. The problem is, at this point in time, the more we focus on these ideological identity questions, the more divisive we become, and consequently, we get distracted from the state-building project. 

It is important to note that, as of now, we have more or less a national aspiration that centres on designing a democratic republic that would systematically protect us from tyranny (the statement is: 'we do not want the fascist system to reappear in any form'), end any possibility of centralisation of power, and help us build a society that is inclusive and free from all forms of discrimination. 

For now, let us focus on these two concepts—inclusivity and freedom from discrimination—and explore how we can redesign the structure and institutions of the state to uphold the principles of a democratic republic. Granted, these are operational questions, but since we have broader agreement on these operational issues, it will be easier for the student leaders to mobilise the masses (around these issues). 

As long as they succeed in doing that, while reiterating that the mass upsurge demanded the rewriting of the rules, they will succeed in reaching out to a broader group of the population.

Thirdly, the student leaders must acknowledge the 'publicness' of the July Movement and understand that, for many, the concept of state rebuilding or reform may remain an abstract construct. 

For a garment worker, a constitutionally guaranteed minimum wage is more important than the separation of powers. 

For industrial workers, the right to mobilise for their political and civil liberties is more precious than a system that ensures a balance of power between the Prime Minister and the President. 

For a transportation worker (including auto-rickshaw drivers), the guarantee of earning their livelihood has remained the fundamental question. 

To maintain and even expand legitimacy, the student leaders and the Citizens Committee must regularly communicate, organise dialogues, and consult with these different groups to find a way to reflect their demands and concerns within the constitution.

Fourthly, the effort to build legitimacy on operational questions where a consensus exists is useful for several reasons. If the student leaders succeed in distancing themselves from the government while pushing for state-building reforms, the interim government, even if it initially adopts a risk-averse approach, will be forced to consider broader reforms that will require significant changes to the constitution. 

Also, if and when the interim government agrees to broader reforms, the question of the process will arise. This is when the student leaders can legitimately demand a Constituent Assembly. 

At present, no one is discussing the Constituent Assembly, but the student leaders or the National Citizens Committee should play a pivotal role in introducing and popularising the concept. 

A well-represented Constituent Assembly would be the right platform to address ideological and identity questions. 

However, this will only happen if the students succeed in maintaining their popularity and approval among the masses. Thirdly, the more successful the student leaders are in becoming the legitimate voice of the people, the more pressure they can exert on the other political parties to set aside the immediate call for elections and instead focus on the state-building project.

Fifthly, after assuming the role of a strong 'pressure group,' the student leaders must be bold enough to criticise the government when it fails. 

Instead of directly interacting with the police and bureaucracy, they should step back, allowing the government to rebuild these institutions and strongly criticise the government machinery when it starts behaving like agents of the earlier regime. 

For instance, whenever a mob takes the law into their hands, engages in moral policing, attacks people of other religions or opinions, or tries to destroy shrines, the students must take a clear stance against them. Rather than working directly for the police or the government, they should pressure the interim government to take action.

Sixthly, the bureaucracy and law enforcement agencies of the country have been developed in such a way that they will always want to serve those in power. This does not depend on the characteristics of individual officials; it is how the entire institution functions. 

Therefore, the students must ensure that they do not accept any illegal or extra-legal assistance from these institutions. I believe it is important that the students step back and allow the National Citizens Committee to be their voice.

Finally, to maintain legitimacy and effect change, the student leaders should not directly attack or antagonise the major political parties. Instead, after establishing themselves as a credible voice (through the processes mentioned above and built on a common minimum agreement), the leaders should repeatedly point out that no political parties in the past have kept their promises after coming to power, and there is no guarantee this will happen in the future. 

Moreover, even if we have a general agreement and commitment from the parties, it is highly likely that, once in power, the majority party would design the constitution to suit its own convenience, while making some symbolic gestures. 

The AL did this in 2009, and that is why we cannot allow it to happen again. Instead, we need a constitution first, which will set the rules in place. These difficult-to-reverse rules will force political parties to act in the nation's interest, even if it means ignoring their self-interest.

A lot depends on whether and how the student leaders build and maintain their legitimacy and how they translate that legitimacy into actions.

Asif M Shahan is an associate professor of the Department of Development Studies, University of Dhaka.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.