EVEN after a decade of Mussolini’s pronouncement as to the basic reactionary tenets of fascism, the word rapidly suffered a massive interpretative inflection, so much so that George Orwell in his 1944 essay, ‘What is Fascism’, could not come up with a good definition of what fascism is and wrote in desperation: ‘all one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to a level of a swearword.’ In today’s miasmic milieu of Bangladeshi politics, in addition to the swearword ‘razakar’, the word ‘fascist’ is also being thrown around in random both by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and its perpetual nemesis, the Awami League. It may not have poignancy right at this point, but it certainly is very important to examine the issue further for the future politics of our country.

What is fascism?
‘FASCIS’ (an Italian word) means bundle or unit while ‘fasces’ (a Latin word) is a symbol of bound sticks used as a totem of power in ancient Rome. These two roots aptly describe the basic tenets of fascism: unity and power. However, the nature of fascism espoused by Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy or Franco in Spain is not exactly the same; still, there are some basic features that characterise any fascist movement.
Authoritarian leadership: A fascist state requires a single leader with absolute authority who is all-powerful and lords over the totality of the state affairs with no limits whatsoever. There also can be a cult of personality around the leader.
Absolute power of state: ‘[T]he fascist state organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the state alone’ — thus goes Mussolini to encapsulate the fact that there is no law or other power that can limit the authority of the state. This is an antithesis of liberal doctrines of individual autonomy and rights, political pluralism and representative government as espoused by the likes of Rousseau; yet, it envisions broad popular support.
Strict social order: To eliminate the possibility of chaos that can undermine state authority, fascism maintains a social order in which every individual has a specific place that cannot be altered. This ‘new order’ often is in clash with traditional institution and hierarchies.
Nationalism and super-patriotism: Fascism digs into the past with unreal romanticism and espouses an historic mission and national rebirth.
Jingoism: Aggression is felt to be a virtue while pacifism a cowardice. Thus, Mussolini writes ‘fascism… believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace… war alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it.’
Dehumanisation and scapegoating of the enemy: Typically every fascist regime seeks out certain group or groups of people — ethnic or religious or ideological — as enemy.

Perspective as it relates to the current regime in Bangladesh
WITH the above features of fascism in mind, let’s see how our current regime in Bangladesh fares.
In a democratic state, the power of state is kept in check by constitutional provisions whereby the state’s business is run, usually, by three co-equal branches of the state, namely, executive, legislative and judiciary. In Bangladesh, the legislative has remained hamstrung by Article 70 of the constitution for many years. Its integrity also is jeopardised by a lack of intramural democracy in most of the political parties including the ruling Awami League. Coupled with the prevailing trickledown politics, where leadership is bestowed upon as a blessing from the party chief for non-political reasons which, at times, can be plainly nefarious, has brewed a miasma where the party chief enjoys a demigod status. Moreover, the independence of the judiciary seems to be a total sham as evidenced by open executive intervention in judicial matters. In fact, the current regime, abetted by its myriad of political outfits, has shown a keen interest in using the judiciary for the sole purpose of harassment, intimidation and silencing of opposing voices. Thus, all the three branches of the state appear to have now morphed into a single behemoth bent to serve the wish of one single person, who is none other than the all-powerful prime minister.
She wields extraordinary power beyond her constitutional ambit. Borrowing a certain amount of mana from her slain father, she also has cultivated a cult where, even her ministers shall kiss her feet with no shame whatsoever. It is widely reported that the Awami League leadership was not in favour of the 15th amendment to the constitution, and it was not part of her election pledges in 2008; yet, it happened only because of the singular wish of the prime minister. The eventual entropy that has befallen on today’s Bangladesh thus falls squarely on her shoulder. Now, after a flawed election on January 5, even though her electoral popularity is at nadir, she continues to remain the only person whose opinion matters. With over three-fourths majority in the 10th Jatiya Sangsad, and Article 70 in place, she still has the capacity to rule by further amendment in the constitution, if she chooses.
Although the Prime Minister continues to chant the popular democratic slogans, actually she has become a hindrance by disenfranchising more than 50 per cent of voting population by cunning political games.
The power of the state has been on the rise for more than a decade in Bangladesh. Although there is no declared state of emergency over the past years, the case Limon vs. the government is not only a forme fruste, but a routine daily fact of national life. State outfits like the Rapid Action Battalion, the police, etc appears to trample individual rights with impunity. The state, it seems, can now put political leaders behind bars even without prima facie evidence of any wrongdoing. Given the prevailing politicisation of the judiciary, individual rights seem to have diminished almost to the point of forfeiture. Mussolini conceptualised the process as ‘all within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state’. And, thus, we see the ultimate transgression of human rights by enforced disappearance and eventual killing of the Narayanganj 7.
By introducing three hundred fiefdoms, each headed by a member of parliament; by nominating non-politician businessmen and thugs for member of parliament; by decapitating the lawmaking power of MPs; and by clipping the wings of the elected local governing bodies, the government seems to have instituted a social order where the cadres of government-affiliated outfits (‘leagues’ and ‘parishads’ of variegate Awami shades and colours) rule over the commoners with impunity. On top of that, law enforcement outfits like the police, RAB, etc also continue to be used as enforcers of governmental whims. At the same time, traditional non-political institutions and hierarchies are being decapitated by rampant politicisation.
The government, instead of promoting a quiet inclusive nationalism, appears bent on promoting super-patriotism at the expense of ethnically non-Bengali Bangladesh nationals. Denial of existence of indigenous ethnic population by our ex-foreign minister is just a glaring example. It is also curious how blatantly the ruling party labels every opposing voice as ‘razakar-sympathiser’. It has divided the nation into two camps: pro- and anti-liberation. Even valiant and decorated heroes of the liberation war are not being spared.
Well, militarily, Bangladesh is not powerful enough to consider military expansion; yet, its portrayal of a simple victory in a legal battle as ‘samudra-bijoy’ talks of its mental makeup. And, yes, it is in a permanent war against those whose voice are not in sync with the ideas and ideals of the ruling Awami League.

Perspective as it relates to the preceding ruling party
AUTHORITARIAN leadership has also been a staple in BNP-politics since its inception. This has now morphed into a family-owned enterprise of the ‘lesser Rahman’. Their intolerance to opposing (or even neutral) view is amply exemplified by the way they treated one of their founder members, Dr B Chowdhury. Despite a disastrous leadership during the ‘2006 to 2008 debacle’, Khaleda Zia continues to rule over the party with an authority that is unheard of in any democracy sans Bangladesh. Her heir apparent, Tarique Rahman, despite his reprehensible Hawa Bhaban activities during the last BNP regime, still welds more power than any senior party leader. The widely reported story that Khaleda Zia once confiscated all cellular devices from her senior leadership during a meeting is just an example of her crude power that overwhelms the collective power of the party leaders. Just like in the Awami League, a slain leader has also become more like a cult leader in the BNP.
The consolidation of the state power to the verge of tyranny, in fact, began during the previous BNP regime by introducing the now-infamous Operation Clean Heart that rapidly degenerated into an Operation Heart Attack. And the origin of RAB and the concept of extrajudicial execution in ‘crossfire’ is of BNP origin.
Just like the Awami League, the BNP also is guilty of promoting the gradual degeneration of traditional social order by empowering parliament members at the expense of the local government. Pan-politicisation of every sphere of national life is also a staple of the BNP.
However, the BNP did not have a jingoistic attitude; its favourite scapegoat under the leadership of Khaleda Zia remained India.

Conclusion
YES, the definition of fascism is fluid, but it definitely is not democracy as its biggest proponent Mussolini once said ‘democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy’. And it will not be untrue if one posits that democracy in Bangladesh is currently in a state of total shamble. Election occurred where voter participation was at an all-time low and where more than fifty per cent voters were disenfranchised to begin with. As per eminent Bangladeshi jurist Shahdin Malik, it was more negotiated and predetermined than was competitive.
Given the reasons and the facts on the ground, there can be arguments, both pro and con, as to the nature of our politics, but certain facts are undeniable. The BNP, right now, is not in power. However, the history of the BNP under the leadership of Khaleda Zia is not very kosher either.
In an op-ed on December 19, 2013, I hoped for sanity to prevail. But the leadership of our God-forsaken homeland apparently has a bigger saint to heed to: ‘history of saints is a history of insane people’ (Benito Mussolini).
A physician, Mohammad Zaman writes from Potsdam, New York.

- See more at: http://newagebd.net/12750/fascist-entropy-of-democratic-politics-in-bangladesh/#sthash.iwKlnWMW.dpuf