The Case for Term Limits for Bangladeshi Prime Ministers: A Path Toward Democratic Strength

Within the span of a few weeks, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who ruled Bangladesh with an iron fist for over 15 years, was forced to resign and flee to India due to a student uprising. Now, with an interim government that has promised to hold a free and fair election in the near future, Bangladeshis must ask themselves how Ms. Hasina was able to consolidate power and transform herself into an autocrat. We believe that, to prevent this situation from recurring, it is imperative that an amendment be ratified to limit the service of a prime minister to two five-year terms. Such an amendment is critical to preserve checks and balances, maintain democracy, combat authoritarianism and graft, and facilitate the passing of the torch to younger generations.

In the absence of term limits, leaders will act and conduct state affairs in such a way as to preserve an infinite hold on power, acting, in essence, in self-interest rather than the national interest. The possibility of obtaining power in perpetuity encouraged Hasina to rig elections by cracking down on opposition leaders, political parties, and online dissidents with the goal of permanently crippling her opponents and holding on to power forever. Sheikh Hasina took draconian actions to this end by i) forcefully exiling a former chief justice when he ruled to limit the government’s authority, ii) removing the Caretaker Government Provision, allowing her, rather an independent body, to manage elections, and iii) using the judiciary to charge dissenters, like the Nobel Laureate Mohammed Yunus and her main political rival and former Prime Minister Kalida Zia, with a host of “crimes”. A rigid term limit encourages leaders to focus on public service rather than electoral concerns and eliminates the incentive to accumulate excessive power by cracking down on dissidents.

Term limits would enable Bangladesh’s politicians to pass the torch to a younger generation of leaders, fostering institutional independence instead of cronyism and corruption. During Sheikh Hasina’s 15-year rule, she made ministerial and governmental appointments based on family connections and support to her party rather than expertise. For example, she appointed her son and her sister’s brother-in-law to the cabinet advisory positions. Dipu Moni, whose father founded Hasina’s party, the Awami League, also received special treatment. When Ms. Moni was criticized for her performance as a minister, rather than removing her from office, Hasina simply shifted her into other political positions and, eventually, another two ministerial positions. Moni is also among 41 of Hasina’s ministers recently charged with corruption for enriching themselves at the expense of the government. Term limits can reduce the likelihood of nepotism and entrenched corruption because a new leader every five or ten years would disrupt networks of cronyism and corruption. By limiting the time a person can serve, term limits can create opportunities for new leaders to bring fresh ideas and perspectives into governing. This is important particularly for a developing country like Bangladesh, where corruption is rampant.

One of the primary objections to term limits is that they prevent policy continuity, create chaos and turnover in government, and inhibit competent officials from remaining in office. In the case of Sheikh Hasina, her economic development and poverty reduction has been praised worldwide and could only have been possible with her long-term projects. There is no doubt that Hasina had great economic success during her term, but the improvement benefited the few and not the many, evidenced by a huge increase in wealth disparity among the population. Additionally, the economic development projects served as a vehicle for Hasina, her family, and other politicians to siphon government funds. While term limits will certainly result in turnover of those who run the government, it is not necessarily true that they will result in constant policy turnover and inconsistency. Should voters wish for a certain policy platform to continue after a leader has reached the end of his or her term, they can simply elect a different leader from the same party. Mandatory new leadership will put parties on notice, forcing them all to develop successful policies with tangible benefits to voters rather than relying on the cronyism and rigged elections of an incumbent prime minister.

Bangladeshis have done something truly monumental in dismantling the Hasina regime. Now it is time for them to get to work in building a new political system, where democracy and meritocracy dominate instead of authoritarianism. The introduction of term limits on the prime minister works to this end by preventing corruption, enhancing accountability, and creating a government in service of the people. The first step down a long path to a more democratic Bangladesh is limiting the amount of time the most powerful person in the country can stay in power.

Peter Grande is a senior at Regis High School in New York City and a 2023 John Sexton Scholar. Tarikul Islam is a co-founder and the current President of the John Sexton Scholars Program at NYU.