Let me ask you a question - in your view, who is the most qualified and democratic president of Bangladesh? If you already know the names of all presidents, then you may already know. But if you don’t, just take a look at the list and then see whom you find the most democratic president of Bangladesh. 

I can tell you by far the name you will find just one name - Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed. His independence and adherence to democratic norms is by far the most among all presidents in Bangladesh. In the list, rest of the presidents are either partisan or did not leave any mark on the democratic process of Bangladesh. He was trusted by all parties to form the first caretaker government of Bangladesh and under his presidency, the country saw the first ever free and fair election in Bangladesh. I do not think you will find any critics of him, except for certain minor issues. 

But do you know how he became the president of Bangladesh for the second time in 1996? Well, he was not interested in becoming president again after he retired from the Supreme Court of Bangladesh as Chief Justice. Sheikh Hasina requested him to become the president. But he was reluctant, but later he accepted the position. There were reports that Hasina said that she would start a hunger strike at the gate of the residence of the Shahabuddin Ahmed unless he agreed to become the president of Bangladesh. 

If you heard the story for the first time now, you may find it unbelievable. Specially if you consider the actions of Hasina’s government for the last 15 years. In almost every aspect, she was an authoritarian kleptocrate. She created an oligarchy and a mafia state. As a result, the people forced her out of power in the July uprising. 

Now, if Hasian was an autocrat by nature, the question would be why she forced Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed to become the president during the tenor of her tenure as prime minster. Why choose an independent and democratic minded person as president? Why not a person who will listen to you and follow her instruction as president? 

Let us compare the decision with other governments. Khaleda Zia during her prime ministership, twice selected three people who will listen to her. In her second term Badruddoza Chowdhury was removed as president as he was not listening to her. She and her party never had, let alone pretend to select anyone with independence. Two of her selected presidents tried to meddle with independent elections. 

Let us compare this with the decision of Hasina to select Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed. He proved his independence and democratic mindset when he refused to sign a law passed by the BAL government at that time as in his view the law was antidemocratic .  

Arguably the BAL government of 1996-2001 was the most democratic government in the history of Bangladesh. That was the only time a government left power voluntarily and did not try to hold power.  

So, Hasina and BAL shows the guts to appoint him president fully knowing what kind of a person he is and later they left power without a fuss. The same Hasina later turned out to be a great dictator. How come a person who selected the most independent and democratic president later turns out to be the great dictator? Why?  

Let us go back to the previous BAL government in 1972-1975. Mujib officially became the dictator in 1975 by forming BAKSAL in 1975 and changing the constitution. However, in 1972, BAL under the leadership of Mujib passed a constitution which, with all of its flaws, is more or less democratic. 

Again, the question is why BAL and Mujib did not impose BAKSAL and the autocratic constitution in 1972. Why did they pass a constitution (with democratic nature) and then changed it in 195?  

If you consider the history since the birth of Bangladesh, you will find that BAL was more democratic than other two major parties (BNP and Jammat). BAL give us the 1972 constitution and the only independent and democratic president. On the other hand, BNP never even tried to pretend democratic in its activities. Jamaat is a fascist party using religion to grab power, which does not believe in an independent Bangladesh. And yet BAL twice turned out to be the most autocratic party in the short history of Bangladesh. 

To me, this is the Awami League paradox of Bangladesh’s democracy. And the question is why the same BAL turned autocratic? Instead of trying to answer the question, I would like to wait. After the July uprising, I feel this is the time we may find an answer to this paradox.