The article 'Bangaldesh's Battle Between Democracy and Autocracy' discusses the recent violence between the state-controlled forces and student protesters. It has been estimated that over 200 people were killed, mostly students, with some "forcefully disappear[ing]" being "tortured and coerced into compromising with the government". Despite Bangladesh holding elections in January of this year, Sheikh Hasina was re-elected for her fourth consecutive premiership - elections which were inherently undemocratic due to the silencing of critics of Hasina and the lack of opposition due to intimidation. These students fear the spiral of the state towards autocracy, where Hasina would face no accountability to the people she 'represents'. However, the student victims of violence have demanded the Prime Minister "apologies" and "accept responsibility for the mass killings" - accountability to the people.
What strikes me about this article, and the wider competitive authoritarianism of Bangladesh, is that the leader is female. This is my first time coming across an authoritarian leader who is female - all historical examples I can think of are male and can often reinforce the patriarchy. This makes me wonder the extent to which patriarchal ideas are upheld by the institutions of the authoritarian state, and the rights of women within the country. Are authoritarian states under the control of women different to those run by men?
Yes, it's pretty uncommon! It's a good question too, and I'm not sure there are many good answers.
ReplyDelete