At its very first session, Bangladesh’s new parliament voted to maintain a ban on the Awami League (AL), the party of ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

This decision was further reinforced through the passage of the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill. The Bangladesh government framed this as a measure to ban a “genocidal organization.”

The AL was in power for three straight terms between 2009 and 2024. Under Hasina’s leadership, the AL government quickly slid into authoritarian and corrupt governance. Following its ouster from power in the wake of mass student-led protests in July-August 2024, the party was banned in May 2025 by the Muhammad Yunus-led interim government.

In the general elections in February, Bangladeshis gave a strong mandate to the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), the AL’s main political rival for decades.

While the BNP government’s decision to extend the ban on the AL is not surprising, given the long-running animosity between the two parties, the decision has sparked numerous questions in the public mind, specifically regarding the rationale behind banning a political party and whether the application of such a ban is equitable.

The practice of banning political parties is not new in Bangladesh’s political landscape; it is a recurring political reality. Often, a decision to ban a party has been overturned by a subsequent government.  The ban on the Jamaat-e-Islami that was imposed by the Mujib government was lifted after his assassination by General Ziaur Rahman. It is evident, therefore, that decisions to ban a party have often served not as permanent solutions, but rather as immediate political maneuvers.

In the context of the mass movement of 2024, the AL government banned the Jamaat-e-Islami and its student wing just days before its ouster from power. However, that decision proved short-lived; following the change of government, the ban was lifted through judicial intervention. This outcome serves as proof that political decisions often lack legal durability and are prone to reversal with every transition of power.

The interim government banned the Awami League and its affiliate organizations only under mounting political pressure. This decision sparked widespread debate both domestically and internationally. The international community had also advised against banning political parties, a stance consistent with democratic norms.

This brings the central question to the fore — is the law being applied equally to everyone? If a political party is banned on charges of past violence and human rights violations, why do other parties, facing identical or even more grave allegations, not face the same consequences?

At the center of this question stands the Jamaat-e-Islami, Bangladesh’s largest Islamist party, whose role during the liberation war of 1971 has long been a subject of intense controversy.

The Jamaat is accused of complicity in the genocide of 3 million people in the run-up to and during the Liberation War. Indeed, even during the inaugural session of the current Parliament, the party was explicitly cited as an accomplice to the Pakistani military’s genocide during the Liberation War. Yet, the BNP government is not considering banning the party.

This question is not merely political; it is fundamentally linked to the principles of justice and the rule of law. If a party is permitted to participate in electoral politics and secure parliamentary representation despite past allegations, it naturally raises a contentious debate — how fair is it to take punitive measures against another party while overlooking similar issues elsewhere?

Also, it is essential to consider whether the entire party and its supporters should be held accountable for the actions of its top leadership. It is a critical question whether it is justifiable to strip individuals at the grassroots level, many of whom have been involved in politics for decades, of their political rights by banning an entire party.

The bedrock of democracy is the coexistence of diverse opinions. Banning a political party via executive order or decision in the Parliament not only targets the party but also excludes and alienates its supporters from the political process. This can lead to heightened political instability and erode public confidence in the democratic system. If a culture of banning political parties becomes entrenched, any party could potentially face the same fate in the future.

Conducting fair investigations and ensuring justice for those responsible for past crimes is undoubtedly imperative. However, banning a party is not the solution. Instead, the long-term solution likely lies in strengthening democratic processes, ensuring the equal application of the law, and placing trust in the verdict of the people. Ultimately, it is the people who will determine which parties endure and which fade into the annals of history.