After 15 August, 1975, the Awami League seemed to vanish from the political landscape. The rallying cry “Joy Bangla” fell silent, and no party operating under the Awami League name existed at the time—it had already been merged into BAKSAL (Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League). Following the political upheaval, BAKSAL quietly faded away, and discussion of it disappeared from public discourse.

The country’s first parliament continued to function, with Abdul Malek Ukil serving as Speaker, but the Awami League as an independent political force was absent from conversation. Many senior leaders were imprisoned, though most MPs retained their positions. Until martial law was declared, no party was officially banned, even those openly opposed to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the Awami League. Yet, despite the turmoil, rank-and-file members of the Awami League, Chhatra League, and Jubo League neither abandoned their homes nor stirred political unrest.

From that perspective, the situation after Sheikh Hasina fled to India on 5 August, 2024, was far more devastating for the Awami League and its affiliated bodies. Even the smallest local leaders did not dare to stay in their areas. Many lost their homes to vandalism. The Chhatra League was banned. Though the Awami League itself was not officially outlawed, its political activities were prohibited, and it was barred from participating in elections. Under such circumstances, the party could have easily become politically irrelevant. But has that actually happened?

The simple answer is—no.

Is it because of the Awami League’s frequent flash processions? Probably not. Nor is it simply due to the party’s online activism among its supporters at home and abroad. The democratic world, in general, is not in favor of banning political parties, and several human rights organizations have written to the government on this issue—what some describe as “international pressure.” While such factors have some political impact, even the most loyal Awami League supporters hardly believe that this alone can bring the party back to its former position anytime soon.

Elections and political trends are one side of the reality. The other side is that, for some sections of the current political community, the Awami League remains both a matter of concern and contemplation. Accusations of attempts to “rehabilitate” the fallen Awami League are frequently voiced, along with mutual blame games. Among those most vocal on this issue is the newly formed National Citizen Party (NCP). Until recently, the NCP accused the BNP of wanting to rehabilitate the Awami League; now, it directs the same allegation toward Jamaat-e-Islami. As the general election approaches, the “Awami League issue” has gained new dimensions.

It should be noted that the BNP has a strong, loyal voter base that votes for the “sheaf of paddy” symbol under any circumstances. The Awami League, too, has a similar vote bank—numerically close. Jamaat-e-Islami also maintains a smaller but now significantly expanded base, according to observers. With the Awami League out of the electoral race, the question arises—where will its core votes go? Both the BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami are eyeing that segment. Jamaat’s effort to attract grassroots Awami supporters appears to worry the NCP, especially after remarks made by its young leader, Samantha Sharmin. In a recent interview with Bangladesh Pratidin, she said that if Jamaat-e-Islami comes to power, it will pave the way for the Awami League’s return.

Her statement contained two contradictory ideas. On the one hand, she claimed that the Awami League and Jamaat-e-Islami share a similar vision of the state. She alleged that Jamaat activists are assuring former Awami supporters that they will be safe if Jamaat comes to power—an apparent tactic to win over silent Awami voters. This is a major concern for some.

Interestingly, there are also claims that the Awami League itself wants Jamaat-e-Islami to come to power—believing that once an Islamist government is established, the international community will push for the “rehabilitation” of the Awami League as a secular force. Such theories sound far-fetched and somewhat humorous. The idea that Awami League and Jamaat share the same political ideology is difficult to sell in the political marketplace. The NCP’s repeated remarks about Jamaat may suggest a deeper political chemistry between the two parties—something worth examining separately.

Before that, it is important to say a few words about the BNP and Jamaat’s election strategy. Regarding the National Consensus and the July Declaration, the BNP has taken a cautious and measured stance. The party has avoided reckless actions and opposed any attempt to overhaul the system without an elected government in place. It has also remained uncompromising in upholding the spirit and honor of the Liberation War. While Jamaat-e-Islami, NCP, and other allied groups have loudly demanded the banning of the Awami League, the BNP has opposed banning any political party by executive order, maintaining that only a court can make such a decision.

In such a scenario, the Awami League’s traditional voters should, in theory, be inclined to vote for the BNP. Yet, personal and family security remains their foremost concern. Many former Awami supporters have faced harassment and extortion after August 5. In some villages, their business permits and even government food cards were revoked. This has created a strong sense of insecurity among them.

If a free and fair election takes place in February, and people can vote without fear, this group will participate. They will likely vote for the candidate they believe will allow them to live and do business safely—not for those they fear. If Jamaat is indeed using such a strategy, as Samantha Sharmin claims, it may benefit electorally, while others who disregard these “silent Awami” votes risk losing out.

How much impact this will have will only become clear after the election results.

A truly free, fair, and inclusive election requires inclusive politics as well. Only those who understand and apply the grammar of inclusive politics wisely will reap the best harvest of democracy. As the largest and most responsible political force at this juncture, the BNP must also remain vigilant.

Finally, about the NCP–Jamaat chemistry: their recent exchanges resemble a friendly quarrel—a fatherly scolding rather than hostility. Calling Jamaat the Awami League’s “relative” serves two purposes: it projects an appearance of rivalry while also appealing to anti-Awami sentiments. Observers note that the relationship between NCP and Jamaat is ideological. Both criticized the July Declaration for omitting any reference to 1947—a striking similarity in their political thinking. Many such parallels could be drawn to show how the old and new parties are intertwined in subtle ways.

The writer is a senior journalist and fiction writer