For months, a quiet yet persistent conversation has been brewing around the potential rehabilitation of the Awami League, a political party long viewed with disdain.

Recently, however, the debate took an unexpected turn. In a post from Hasnat Abdullah, a prominent anti-discrimination student leader, it was revealed that Army Chief General Waker had signaled plans to reinstate the Awami League.

According to Hasnat, on March 11, he and others were summoned to the army headquarters, where they were informed that several key, uncontested figures within the Awami League would be invited to rejoin the electoral process.

The news sparked immediate backlash and discussions, particularly around the names mentioned in the press.

Former Awami League minister Saber Hossain Chowdhury and former Speaker Shirin Sharmin Chaudhury have been identified as key figures who may lead this rehabilitation effort.

Advocates of the move argue that these individuals are relatively uncontroversial and possess a "clean" public image. Their case is simple: excluding a major party like the Awami League from elections would, they argue, delegitimize the entire process.

But this raises a fundamental question: Is the Awami League still a political party, or has it simply become a relic of a bygone era, a shadow of its former self? On paper, yes, the Awami League exists as a party.

But in reality, it’s hard to deny that its roots have been irrevocably tied to the Sheikh family, the very family that has dominated its fortunes for decades.

The true death knell for the Awami League, as we once knew it, came in 1975 when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman established the Baksal regime, effectively burying the party's original identity.

By the time of Sheikh Mujib’s tragic assassination, efforts to revive the Awami League were underway, spearheaded by figures like Zohra Tajuddin and Kamal Hossain.

Yet, their realization was stark: no meaningful political movement could thrive under the banner of Baksal, a regime steeped in autocratic control and misrule.

From a political party to dynastic enterprise

Since then, the Awami League has evolved into what could be best described as a dynastic enterprise. Since 1972, it has gradually been transformed into a family-centric institution, with Sheikh Hasina—Mujib's daughter—ultimately at the helm.

Her leadership, beginning with her return to Bangladesh from India in 1981, has shaped the party into a political monolith that has stifled opposition, sidelined dissent, and made the party more synonymous with her family’s interests than with any national or democratic cause.

Despite occasional promises of reform and democratic renewal, Hasina’s tenure has been marked by increasingly autocratic tendencies.

The supposed rehabilitation of the Awami League, then, may be little more than a continuation of the family’s grip on power—a method of consolidating control under a new veneer.

With figures like Saber Hossain Chowdhury and Shirin Sharmin Chaudhury now presented as "clean" faces, one must ask: did they ever challenge Hasina's autocratic rule, or did they simply enjoy the spoils of a system that rewarded loyalty above all else?

The idea that these figures, who benefited from a regime steeped in questionable practices, could now spearhead a reformed, democratic Awami League seems implausible at best. And yet, the calls for their rehabilitation continue.

The question remains: if this party’s very foundation is rooted in dynastic control, can it ever truly represent the democratic will of the people?

When Sheikh Hasina was elected president of the Awami League in 1981, she returned from India to take control of the party.

However, her increasingly autocratic approach and monopolistic dominance soon made the Awami League a party that was widely disliked by much of the population. Her defeat in the 1991 elections was a clear reflection of this.

Like many others, I hoped that Hasina would learn from her mistakes and work to reshape the Awami League into a truly democratic and inclusive political force.

Unfortunately, that hope has remained unfulfilled. Over time, Hasina’s leadership has grown even more authoritarian.

Dissent within the party was swiftly silenced, leaving no room for differing opinions. As a result, many who had once shouldered the responsibility of leading the party during challenging times, such as the late Zohra Tajuddin and Kamal Hossain, gradually faded into the background.

A haven for corruption

I soon realized that Sheikh Hasina, much like her father, began to see the Awami League as her personal possession. In doing so, she transformed Bangladesh into a haven for corruption and plunder.

After returning to power for a second term in 2009, the country witnessed the full extent of this over the past 16 years.

Her followers entered into a disturbing competition to secure their share of the spoils, and by the time she fled the country on August 5th, she had institutionalized this corrupt system.

The Awami League, once a broader political entity, had once again fallen under individual control, evolving into what could now be called the Hasina League, much like the Mujib League before it.

It is my firm belief that Sheikh Hasina inherited this autocratic mindset from her father. In doing so, she established a dynastic system, disregarding both the party and the nation, consolidating power within her family.

When you look closely, it becomes clear that almost everyone in Sheikh Hasina’s family has somehow benefited from her rule.

They have been appointed as ministers, MPs, heads of business organizations, members of the Sports Council, presidents of school and college governing bodies, mayors, and so on.

Now, let's consider the so-called "refined" Awami League. I’m not entirely sure what that term means.

The figures being mentioned, such as Saber Hossain Chowdhury and Shirin Sharmin Chaudhury, were deeply embedded in this system of corruption. Did they ever speak out against Sheikh Hasina’s plundering? Did they quietly resign in protest?

No, they were among the first to profit from this system. Saber Hossain and Shirin Sharmin enjoyed all the privileges it offered until the very end. Shirin Sharmin, in particular, knew that under Sheikh Hasina’s leadership, no election was ever truly fair.

The parliament formed through these elections was itself illegal. So, how can Shirin Sharmin absolve herself of any responsibility?

While I'm unsure of when the next elections will be held, one thing is clear: those who rise to power through them are unlikely to differ much from the autocrats they replace, sadly. But that remains a discussion for another time.

—

Arshad Mahmud is a senior journalist. He covered Bangladesh for the New York Times for a long time