Rethinking the Use of “Fascism” in Describing Sheikh Hasina’s Regime
The term “fascist” features prominently in the proposed Preamble of the Constitution Reform Commission. However, there are compelling reasons to reconsider its inclusion.
The first paragraph of the draft Preamble states that the people “forged united resistance against autocratic and fascist rule to establish democracy.” The second paragraph reinforces this by highlighting the ideals of democracy and anti-discrimination that unified the nation against “fascist rule” in 2024.
Clearly, without explicitly naming individuals, this language references the “July Uprising” against Sheikh Hasina’s authoritarian regime. Student leaders who led the movement frequently described Hasina’s rule as “fascist,” and this terminology soon became central to the popular discourse surrounding the uprising. Consequently, the proposed Preamble adopted this rhetoric to capture the movement’s essence.
Why Labeling Hasina’s Regime “Fascist” is a Mistake
Despite its widespread use, incorporating “fascism” into the Preamble is problematic on both conceptual and political grounds.
- Conceptual Error: The oppression under Hasina’s rule does not align with the classical definition of fascism.
- Political Error: Mislabeling her regime as fascist inadvertently grants it an undue level of ideological significance, ultimately downplaying its true nature and brutality.
Understanding Fascism and Why It Doesn’t Fit
Like other ideologies—such as communism, nationalism, and liberalism—fascism is driven by a distinct worldview. At its core, it prioritizes the supremacy of the collective state over individual freedoms. In a fascist regime, the state’s “greatness” takes precedence over personal well-being, leading to three defining characteristics:
- Militarism and Expansionism: Historically, fascist rulers pursued aggressive military campaigns to assert national dominance.
- Authoritarianism and Suppression: Fascism justifies crushing dissent, as individual freedoms are seen as subordinate to the state’s interests.
- State-Controlled Economy: Economic systems under fascist rule are often tightly controlled, with private enterprise viewed with suspicion.
Hasina’s Rule: Authoritarian, But Not Fascist
Sheikh Hasina’s regime fails to meet these criteria:
- Lack of Militarism: Her administration was not expansionist or militarily aggressive.
- Crony Capitalism, Not State Control: Unlike fascist economies, Hasina’s rule enabled rampant crony capitalism, allowing her allies to exploit public resources for personal enrichment.
- Absence of Ideological Justification: Fascist regimes operate under the ideological premise of collective supremacy. Hasina, however, was motivated purely by personal power and megalomania rather than an ideological commitment to the state’s greatness.
A Regime Defined by Self-Interest, Not Fascist Ideology
While all fascist regimes are authoritarian, not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. Hasina’s government was undoubtedly oppressive, but it lacked the ideological foundation that defines fascism. Her authoritarianism stemmed from personal ambition rather than a structured political doctrine.
Therefore, while her rule was marked by severe repression and brutality, labeling it as “fascist” is misleading. More precise language is needed to accurately describe the nature of her governance and its consequences.
