Rule of Law

Rule of Law describes how and how effectively law is executed in the country, largely resulting from those whose roles require the interpretation of the law (ex. Judges, law enforcement). The Rule of Law in a free country means there must be an independent judiciary, due process in civil and criminal matters, protection against illegitimate use of force, and equal treatment under the law. The judiciary should act independently in that there should be no/limited influences from the other branches of government, rulings should be impartial, the process for judges to be picked and dismissed should be fair, and finally the legitimate enforcement and compliance to such rulings. The prevailing of due process in civil and criminal matters implies the presence of defendants’ rights, access to courts and legal counsel, right to fair trial, prosecutors independent from government or private influence, and professional/justified law enforcement. The protection against unjustified use of physical force and freedom from war/revolts is present when there is a lack of violence during arrests or questioning (and if there is abuse experiences, there are effective means of petition and redress), decent treatment in detention facilities and prisons, and the population is not subject to acts of violence in conflict and civil war. Equal treatment under laws, policies, and practices is ensured when various groups including minorities (LGBT, religious, and ethnic groups, etc.) are able to exercise their full rights, that violence against such groups is considered a crime, that there is a lack of discrimination against these groups for employment/education/housing, non-citizens have human rights. The moving parts which define a country’s Rule of Law are based on how fairly the law is executed, interpreted, and how well it ensures people’s rights are secured (Freedom House, 2018).

Rule of Law in A Free Country

A just rule of law is essential to the functioning of a free country. Rule of law should largely serve to prevent the exploitation and elitist exceptions in the legal system. Corruption in the rule of law would result in the imprisonment and abuse of anyone who objects those in power, while the law would go soft for any elite or person in power. The goals of a free country are focused to do the precise opposite- the rule of law should ensure equal treatment and minimized influence from outside parties.

Rule of Law in Bangladesh

The Dhaka Tribune’s article about “Police Violence on Students” covers the student protests following the killing of a group of students by a speeding bus. Such protests have resulted in student-police clashes, including accounts of the police firing batons and charging to suppress protesters. The article also questions the legitimacy/constitutionality that the police had in reacting so violently to the protests, led primarily by students under the age of 18. For example, article 37 of the Constitution of Bangladesh specifically ensures the right for minors to protest peacefully. Section 70 of the Child Rights Act 2013 also states that the act of physical and mental torture of children is punishable (Hasan, 2018).

Based on this article, and the information gathered throughout my other blog posts, the police is another part of the corrupt Bangladeshi government. The police are easily influenced by the leading party, and this case reflects their prioritization of order over the law. The Bangladeshi police contributes to why Bangladesh is not a fully “free” country since there is not much protection over the illegitimate use of force. Even though there are laws to prevent the illegitimate use of force, it is clearly not implemented.

UPI article “Bangladesh court sentences 19 to die for grenade attack 14 years ago”, as indicated by its title, covers the court sentence of 19 executions (all are BNP members) for a grenade attack that occurred over a decade ago. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party’s secretary general describes the verdict as “just another example of using judiciary political revenge.” The BNP party chief and son of the former prime minister were sentenced to life imprisonment (Adamczyk, 2018).

I think that this attack that killed 24 people is a crime that cannot go without repercussions. However, the real question this article raises is whether this sentence and other sentences plaguing the nation has political motive. There seems to be an obvious trend of the Awami League exercising their power as a way to ensure that they never lose that power. They are using military force and the courts to punish opposition. In doing so, they send a message to the general public while suppressing the opposition. Such a harsh sentence will intimidate anyone supporting the BNP. Additionally, if these are falsely accused criminals, then it would both fulfill the Awami League’s agenda by antagonizing the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and oppressing its members. Without getting into the issues of a death sentence in itself, I think that this case is also a reflection of how the rule of law in Bangladesh limits its chances to be considered a “free” country since the judiciary and every other part of government can be so easily influenced by power rather than law and justice.

Works Cited

“Methodology: Freedom in the World 2018.” Freedom House. April 19, 2018. Accessed November 09, 2018. https://freedomhouse.org/report/methodology-freedom-world-2018.

Adamczyk, Ed. “Bangladesh Court Sentences 19 to Die for Grenade Attack 14 Years Ago.” UPI. October 10, 2018. Accessed November 09, 2018. https://www.upi.com/Bangladesh-court-sentences-19-to-die-for-grenade-attack-14-years-ago/3081539186238/.

Hasan, Muhibul. “Police Violence on Students.” Dhaka Tribune. August 09, 2018. Accessed November 09, 2018. https://www.dhakatribune.com/magazine/weekend-tribune/2018/08/09/police-violence-on-students.