This paper explores the tumultuous political history of Bangladesh since it embarked on democratization process in 1991 after two decades of civilian and military authoritarianism, using the political settlement framework. Political settlement, in this paper is understood as, an agreement among elites and other social forces regarding ‘distribution of benefits supported by its institutions consistent with the distribution of power in the society’ (Khan, 2010). At the political level the arrangement is expected to ensure that the system would not unravel by conflict and violence. In the past decades, the country not only experienced repeated episodes of violence but also hopes of a democratic transformation have faded. Bangladesh has moved towards a non-inclusive political system. The paper argues that the period in question is marked by the emergence and collapse of a political settlement among political elites. It explores the nature and scope of the political settlement that emerged in the 1980s and collapsed by 2010, and demonstrates that by 2014, an exclusionary authoritarian settlement has emerged characterized by a lack of inclusivity and coercive apparatuses’ heightened role. The breakdown of political settlement was predicated by the nature of the settlement, its implications for the elites in the challenger coalition, and the degree of inclusivity of the dominant coalition. The exclusionary political settlement provides a semblance of ‘stability’ for a limited period but fails to contain the tension in the long term even when it delivers economic growth.

This paper explores the tumultuous political history of Bangladesh since it embarked on democratization process in 1991 after two decades of civilian and military authoritarianism, using the political settlement framework. Political settlement, in this paper is understood as, an agreement among elites and other social forces regarding ‘distribution of benefits supported by its institutions consistent with the distribution of power in the society’ (Khan, 2010). At the political level the arrangement is expected to ensure that the system would not unravel by conflict and violence. In the past decades, the country not only experienced repeated episodes of violence but also hopes of a democratic transformation have faded. Bangladesh has moved towards a non-inclusive political system. The paper argues that the period in question is marked by the emergence and collapse of a political settlement among political elites. It explores the nature and scope of the political settlement that emerged in the 1980s and collapsed by 2010, and demonstrates that by 2014, an exclusionary authoritarian settlement has emerged characterized by a lack of inclusivity and coercive apparatuses’ heightened role. The breakdown of political settlement was predicated by the nature of the settlement, its implications for the elites in the challenger coalition, and the degree of inclusivity of the dominant coalition. The exclusionary political settlement provides a semblance of ‘stability’ for a limited period but fails to contain the tension in the long term even when it delivers economic growth.

This paper explores the tumultuous political history of Bangladesh since it embarked on democratization process in 1991 after two decades of civilian and military authoritarianism, using the political settlement framework. Political settlement, in this paper is understood as, an agreement among elites and other social forces regarding ‘distribution of benefits supported by its institutions consistent with the distribution of power in the society’ (Khan, 2010). At the political level the arrangement is expected to ensure that the system would not unravel by conflict and violence. In the past decades, the country not only experienced repeated episodes of violence but also hopes of a democratic transformation have faded. Bangladesh has moved towards a non-inclusive political system. The paper argues that the period in question is marked by the emergence and collapse of a political settlement among political elites. It explores the nature and scope of the political settlement that emerged in the 1980s and collapsed by 2010, and demonstrates that by 2014, an exclusionary authoritarian settlement has emerged characterized by a lack of inclusivity and coercive apparatuses’ heightened role. The breakdown of political settlement was predicated by the nature of the settlement, its implications for the elites in the challenger coalition, and the degree of inclusivity of the dominant coalition. The exclusionary political settlement provides a semblance of ‘stability’ for a limited period but fails to contain the tension in the long term even when it delivers economic growth.

Any global structure comprises of ideational and material elements. To put the idea into practice, members of the global community formulate rules and regulations and marshal resources to build capacities and institutions that can affect states and societies. Although the effects of the global structures on the state fragility are increasingly being recognized, the pathways through which they can affect the states contributing to its fragility or strengthening its resilience have been rarely examined. This paper aims at filling the void in the literature by offering a structural explanation of state fragility. The post 9/11 structure of the Global War on Terrorism (GWoT) has been taken as a proxy to theorize the pathways. It argues that the ideational and material factors of the GWoT operate through: (i) the cognitive pathway shaping the states’ thinking, interpreting and reasoning process (ii) the regulatory pathway creating demand for policy coordination, cooperation and compatible legal and procedural instruments for counter terrorism (CT) and their compliance (iii) the capability pathway shaping the states’ coercive capability, institutions and CT alliance building. The theorized pathways are illustrated through schematic diagrams showing how they can impact the states’ legitimacy and capacity dimensions contributing to the increase or decrease of the state fragility to facilitate their tracing in individual case studies. Finally, the paper makes comparative analysis of the cognitive, regulatory and capability pathways highlighting their relationship and relative significance.

Bangladesh has made impressive progress and undergone structural changes over the last five decades despite resource constraints and various social and political challenges. However, while in the long-term, its economic growth is remarkable, the short-term performance is somewhat disappointing. Moreover, while the average and aggregate numbers paint an inspiring image, disaggregated indicators do not often support the apparent good health of the economy. This paper brings out two issues: (i) what have been the growth drivers of Bangladesh economy, and (ii) what have been the outcomes of growth. It also makes a number of recommendations for maintaining, expediting and sustaining the growth momentum. The article recommends for more employment generation in the formal sector, reduction of inequality, mobilization of higher domestic resources, energizing private investment, and above all, ensuring good governance. The paper emphasizes on continuous institutional reforms to improve the quality of growth and ensure distributional justice in Bangladesh.

The Constitutions of democratic countries list, and elaborately specify the makeup and functions of, three branches of government: the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary. The Media, dubbed the Fourth Estate by Edmund Burke, cannot be a part of the government. In fact, to contemplate a free media being a part of a government would be an oxymoron. After all, the Media is there to keep a check on the abuse of power by the government and other power structures. This paper looks at the media’s role in a country’s governance, security, and development, and these are encapsulated, indicating also to their complementarity, in the quality traditional media’s glamour best: political journalism. Today, in the early twenty-first century, journalism is still, for good and ill, at the heart of politics. But political journalism is also changing and reinventing itself as a craft and a profession in the face of harsh competition, a rapidly changing business environment, and a political world undergoing its own profound changes. Furthermore, in the Internet Age, the new media, because of the possibilities for good or mischief that it can create, is often a target for manipulation towards one’s own benefit, and at the expense of other political entities, in a number of countries.

A central normative argument of liberal democracy is that elections as instruments of democracy need to be free, fair and neutral to reflect peoples’ opinions. In many parts of the world, particularly democracies in developing countries of South Asia and Africa, governments are formed by elections that are sometimes considered flawed by the people and international observers. This raises a critical question with far-reaching implications for democracy: What affects the fairness of the elections? Is there any significant direct effect of globalization on elections? If not, under what circumstances does globalization influence the quality of elections? Do effective political institutions condition the effect of globalization on the fairness of the elections? I empirically assess these questions from 2006 to 2010 for 100 countries in a time-series cross-sectional statistical model using the 2015 Quality of Government (QoG) dataset. The results suggest that greater levels of globalization significantly increase the fairness of the elections in countries where effective political institutions exist. The results furthermore demonstrate that in the absence of viable democratic institutions, an increased level of globalization may not always correspond to free, fair and neutral elections.

In August 2019, the populist Modi government, after getting re-elected in a massive landslide, rescinded the semi-autonomous status (constitutionally guaranteed under Article 370) of the disputed Muslim-majority region of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) by putting its 12 million residents under an unprecedented lockdown. This article will examine the ramifications of this decision, which earned praise in mainland India but generated anger and fear among the people of J&K, especially in the Kashmir Valley, the epicenter of the Kashmiri self-determination movement? It situates the prior measures Indian government took to impose its decision on the population which strongly opposed it and assesses the human cost of this imposition. It looks at the international community’s response to the political and human rights crisis obtained due to the siege imposed on the people of the contested Himalayan region. And, finally, the article indicates that the political future of Kashmir, which has been the main source of intense geopolitical rivalry between two nuclear-armed South Asian neighbors (India and Pakistan), and a site of protracted armed conflict and unarmed anti-India resistance, is likely to remain caught in a cycle.