It was only last week that it was mentioned in this column that the female political leadership mettle of Sheikh Hasina Wajed of Bangladesh was in the process of being tested and that she possessed the potential to stand alongside two other outstanding women political leaders of this region – Indira Gandhi of India and Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan.

The resounding triumph of the Awami League led by Wajed at the just concluded Bangladeshi parliamentary poll, sufficiently indicates that history has truly bestowed on her this opportunity to earn for herself a position among the political greats of South Asia. The opportunity could be said to be just right because Bangladesh is faced with the tough challenge of rehabilitating democracy and giving it long life, following a period of military-backed authoritarian rule. If Wajed measures-up to this challenge, she could very well be on the path to political greatness.

Wajed, like her well known father before her, the figure widely regarded as the founding father of Bangladesh, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, is associated not only with multi-party democracy but also with secularism. The Awami League, founded by Mujibur, is almost synonymous today with secular democracy and in this regard it differs vastly from the Bangladesh Nationalist Party ( BNP ) of Begum Khaleda Zia which enjoys the notoriety of forming electoral alliances with parties championing religious fundamentalism. Intermittent military rule in Bangladesh, in fact, led to the firming of religious fundamentalism in the country’s polity because military rulers found it advantageous to link-up with and foster the forces of this species of fundamentalism.

Maj. Gen. Ziaur Rahman, for instance, the father of Khaleda Zia, who made himself President of Bangladesh in 1977, amended the constitution to remove the provision relating to secularism. Thus, secularism ceased to be a principle of state policy. Earlier, in 1976, a presidential proclamation revoked Article 38 of the constitution which prohibited the formation of communal parties and organisations.

The gradual firming of religious fundamentalism in the country’s polity came to a head of sorts on the eve of August 21, 2004, when an Awami League election rally in Dhaka came under a massive grenade attack which apparently was aimed at eliminating the Awami leadership, including Hasina Wajed. Scores were killed in the attack but Hasina escaped unhurt. At that time the BNP was in league with fundamentalist political formations, such as, the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Islami Oikya Jote.

A principal challenge before the incoming Awami League-dominated government would be to restore the secular identity of Bangladesh. It would also need to render ineffective the forces of religious fundamentalism which have over the years worked towards weakening the country’s democratic institutions. This task would need to be considered a priority because Bangladesh is being regarded in some quarters as undergoing what is referred to as a ‘Talibanization’ process. The anxiety among them is that Bangladesh would be the next Afghanistan. That is, a chronically conflict-ridden country where lawlessness is rampant. The more than occasional horrific acts of violence in Bangladesh, said to be the handiwork of hard line political forces, are a reminder that the enterprise of rejuvenating democracy in the country cannot be postponed.

Incoming Premier Wajed, therefore, could consider her work as cut out for her. Fortunately for her, Bangladesh is surrounded by democracies, such as post-Musharraf Pakistan and India, which should have no interest in opportunistically exploiting the forces of religious fundamentalism.

The question could very likely be raised by some: ‘What is wrong with parties which are religiously oriented’? Nothing, as long as they operate within the rules and values of democracy. For instance, they should act accommodatively along with secular parties and desist from using violence for the furtherance of their ends. Religiously-oriented parties become a blight on democratic states and their citizenry when they resort to violence to further their ends and show intolerance of views and beliefs that challenge their standpoints and presumptions.

Besides working towards restoring Bangladesh’s image as a secular democracy, the incoming government would also need to work out ways and means of whittling-down the influence of the military in national politics. This is a task Bangaladesh shares with Pakistan. Over the years, the Pakistani People’s Party struggled tooth-and-nail to keep the army at bay and this task has by no means ended. Benazir Bhutto’s efforts to rid Pakistani politics of the influence of anti-democratic forces cost Bhutto her life and her high political stature derives considerably from this gripping struggle she was engaged in against the antagonists of secular democracy. It is to be seen whether Wajed is made of the same stuff as Bhutto.

With the possible exception of India, democracy in the truest and fullest sense, could be said to be eluding the rest of South Asia. We certainly do not have it in Sri Lanka where the state remains in the hegemonic grip of the majority community. But, as argued in this column, democracy too is a process and needs to be strenuously pursued until vibrant democratic institutions are established in the respective states. Bangladesh’s Hasina Wajed has proved over the years that she has it in her to work towards aims which are laudable from the viewpoint of restoring democracy.

A dire current need in South Asia is the deep entrenchment of both democratic and accountable institutions. Corruption in public life has been a major issue in Bangladesh over the years, and the Hasina administration would need to prove that it could make a deep dent in this problem which is bedevilling most polities in this region. There is no getting away from the need to install and render ‘tamper-proof’ corruption fighting state institutions which would relentlessly and uninterruptedly work towards ending the curse of corruption.