Is Sheikh Hasina turning Bangladesh into a one-party state?

[Psychic]

Some can be moral without it....most are not. Its not commentary on you personally or any individual here (I don't know about). Its what the larger population is like. Humans are tribal, require order and require absolute references for larger society. Strip that from them (and that is the ambition of lefties), and way more nefarious forces (like govt or whatever other groupthink) fill the void.....because then it just becomes a clamour as to who can control the relative references of morality (for their own personal gain). When you are inherently aligned to an absolute moral standard beyond human reach, it becomes exactly that, beyond human reach/control/manipulation....thus fully impervious to real human imperfections in the context of society. @Desert Fox @Psychic

True that. According to the commies, religion is a shackle imposed on a child---they do not see the shackle of their own ideology(along with it, their moral standard) imposed on a whole population.



These Bongas want a commie style Hasina-only govt. Yet on 71 war threads, they claim that they were denied their democratic rights by an authoritarian West-Pakistani elite--- They claim themselves to be the champions of democracy and freedom on those threads and argue that they were not allowed to form the government despite scoring a (minor)majority in a general election.

 

[Tanveer666]

Bongas want a commie style Hasina-only govt.

We really don't, but there are no better alternatives .

they claim that they were denied their democratic rights by an authoritarian West-Pakistani elite

We were, had PPP/west pakistan "surrendered" their power peacefully, there would'be been no liberation war .

 

[BATMAN]

Is Sheikh Hasina turning Bangladesh into a one-party state?

and that party is RAW.

 

[Tanveer666]

Is Sheikh Hasina turning Bangladesh into a one-party state?

and that party is RAW.

really?

 

[HariPrasad]

If she is really doing that than she is doing a great service to BD. I was always specticle bout the situation in BD if so called other parties come to power. They have a capability to turn BD into a hell. BD people should stand behind Hasina and support her.

 

[bête noire]

Some can be moral without it....most are not. Its not commentary on you personally or any individual here (I don't know about). Its what the larger population is like. Humans are tribal, require order and require absolute references for larger society. Strip that from them (and that is the ambition of lefties), and way more nefarious forces (like govt or whatever other groupthink) fill the void.....because then it just becomes a clamour as to who can control the relative references of morality (for their own personal gain). When you are inherently aligned to an absolute moral standard beyond human reach, it becomes exactly that, beyond human reach/control/manipulation....thus fully impervious to real human imperfections in the context of society.

Quite a lot of BS. You are grasping at straws showcasing poor countries' majority having tribal mentality. Humans don't require nonsense like "absolute reference". What they need is education which poor countries lack resources to achieve. Absolute reference don't change or adopt with time and newfound knowledge. Almost every country on earth with high majority nonbelievers perform the best at everything and lead the happiest life. While surprise surprise, the ones that are most religious, are stuck on primitive lifestyle.

This isn't the dark age where information on our surroundings and knowledge of everything about earth is severely limited. If you can have the resources to teach people religion then you would also have the resources to teach people factual education. The utter nonsense that some desert dueller makes up stories and laws and everyone else that comes after generation to generation has to follow that as "absolute authority" as if this ancient people had any idea or knowledge about anything past their experience or timeline.

When you are inherently aligned to an absolute moral standard beyond human reach, it becomes exactly that, beyond human reach/control/manipulation....thus fully impervious to real human imperfections in the context of society.

There is no such thing as moral standard beyond human reach. It's made up by human. You can't be "aligned" to non-existent absolute moral standard. All the religions are filled with many laws and stories where you'd have to do severe mental gymnastics to somehow make them sound moral in an alternate timeline and not even in this world, i.e slavery. You wouldn't (guessing) even agree to your own religion laws fully.

I am interested to know what is this "absolute reference" you have or you follow. The infallible moral code that stays with time, beyond human manipulation or control. Do enlighten me about this moral guide I have been missing my whole life.

 

[fallstuff]

Quite a lot of BS. You are grasping at straws showcasing poor countries' majority having tribal mentality. Humans don't require nonsense like "absolute reference". What they need is education which poor countries lack resources to achieve. Absolute reference don't change or adopt with time and newfound knowledge. Almost every country on earth with high majority nonbelievers perform the best at everything and lead the happiest life. While surprise surprise, the ones that are most religious, are stuck on primitive lifestyle.

This isn't the dark age where information on our surroundings and knowledge of everything about earth is severely limited. If you can have the resources to teach people religion then you would also have the resources to teach people factual education. The utter nonsense that some desert dueller makes up stories and laws and everyone else that comes after generation to generation has to follow that as "absolute authority" as if this ancient people had any idea or knowledge about anything past their experience or timeline.


There is no such thing as moral standard beyond human reach. It's made up by human. You can't be "aligned" to non-existent absolute moral standard. All the religions are filled with many laws and stories where you'd have to do severe mental gymnastics to somehow make them sound moral in an alternate timeline and not even in this world, i.e slavery. You wouldn't (guessing) even agree to your own religion laws fully.

I am interested to know what is this "absolute reference" you have or you follow. The infallible moral code that stays with time, beyond human manipulation or control. Do enlighten me about this moral guide I have been missing my whole life.

An example of Moral Absolutism is/are the Ten Commandments, very few people live by it. Machiavelli's “For although the act condemns the doer, the end may justify him…”
Discourses: I, 9 " commonly known as "End Justifies the Means" seems to be the prime directive these days.

 

[Nilgiri]

Quite a lot of BS. You are grasping at straws showcasing poor countries' majority having tribal mentality. Humans don't require nonsense like "absolute reference". What they need is education which poor countries lack resources to achieve. Absolute reference don't change or adopt with time and newfound knowledge. Almost every country on earth with high majority nonbelievers perform the best at everything and lead the happiest life. While surprise surprise, the ones that are most religious, are stuck on primitive lifestyle.

This isn't the dark age where information on our surroundings and knowledge of everything about earth is severely limited. If you can have the resources to teach people religion then you would also have the resources to teach people factual education. The utter nonsense that some desert dueller makes up stories and laws and everyone else that comes after generation to generation has to follow that as "absolute authority" as if this ancient people had any idea or knowledge about anything past their experience or timeline.


There is no such thing as moral standard beyond human reach. It's made up by human. You can't be "aligned" to non-existent absolute moral standard. All the religions are filled with many laws and stories where you'd have to do severe mental gymnastics to somehow make them sound moral in an alternate timeline and not even in this world, i.e slavery. You wouldn't (guessing) even agree to your own religion laws fully.

I am interested to know what is this "absolute reference" you have or you follow. The infallible moral code that stays with time, beyond human manipulation or control. Do enlighten me about this moral guide I have been missing my whole life.

Commie detected. Thumbed up by the Fidel lover too, how apt.

 

[bête noire]

An example of Moral Absolutism is/are the Ten Commandments, very few people live by it. Machiavelli's “For although the act condemns the doer, the end may justify him…”
Discourses: I, 9 " commonly known as "End Justifies the Means" seems to be the prime directive these days.

I am aware of what religious people refer to as "absolute moral" guide. However, my point was, there wasn't any such thing since every religious book has laws that the believer themselves would have to do mental gymnastics to explain the every existence of that law in their holy book let alone saying they should follow that. Like slavery, bible is cool with slavery while Cristians aren't going say slavery is okay but will make a lot of things up on why the laws regarding how to treat slaves exists and not condemn such act.

These absolute moral books do not adopt new changes with the progress of society or newfound knowledge. It is by all means a backward moral code since it does not improve and are not subjected to change when needed.

Even in the 10 commandments, the one that condemns working on Sunday? That who does should be executed? This is their idea of "absolute morals". Bible says it's moral to punish anyone who works on Sundays. Either the Christians are morally bankrupt or they don't actually believe or follow the bible to be the moral arbiter.

Commie detected. Thumbed up by the Fidel lover too, how apt.

Can't come up with a anything in reply, just call them commie. Quite funny because I believe in near absolute democracy and you follow a book that tells you what to do, who to choose, who to like or dislike and so on, kinda like communism isn't it.

And why are you worked up on me getting thumbed up by Fidel lover when you are the type that is desperate for likes. You linger around BD sub forum and call in everyone in you comment to give you 'likes' on those comments. Haven't seen someone so desperate for likes in my life, asking for everyone who has nothing to do with BD sub forum or any of threads but has come to come to like your comment.

 

[Nilgiri]

Can't come up with a anything in reply, just call them commie. Quite funny because I believe in near absolute democracy and you follow a book that tells you what to do, who to choose, who to like or dislike and so on, kinda like communism isn't it.

And why are you worked up on me getting thumbed up by Fidel lover when you are the type that is desperate for likes. You linger around BD sub forum and call in everyone in you comment to give you 'likes' on those comments. Haven't seen someone so desperate for likes in my life, asking for everyone who has nothing to do with BD sub forum or any of threads but has come to come to like your comment.

More typical commie talk.

@Desert Fox @Psychic

 

[bluesky]

You are trying to imply that BD is better off with democracy?

There is no substitute for democracy. Democracy does not only mean an uninterrupted general election. It also means that a country builds many democratic institutions where the voices of the population are heard and remedies are taken. BD has become a fully autocratic state that will make BD suffer in the long run. BD lacks every thing. It has become a country infested with hooligans, murderers, rapist, looteras and every other devil thing, you name.

It is all because the country has no opportunity to rectify its people without the presence of democracy. It is unwise to think that only AL hooligans can develop the country. There are many other people who can contribute. At least, I am happy that one undemocratic institution has been dismantled: the idiotic FF quota for civil service job. It is AL which irrationally selects who is a freedom fighter. The only criteria is if that person's family is an AL supporter or not.

 

[Tanveer666]

BD lacks every thing. It has become a country infested with hooligans, murderers, rapist, looteras and every other devil thing, you name.

This is exactly why we don't need democracy , for now. Most of the aforementioned thugs align themselves with a certain League or a certain Nationalist party (whichever happens to be in power) ;

With democracy, every 5-10 years either AL or BNP will be in power, so we are essentially stuck between a rock and a hard place; And the "cult-ish" mentality of a large percentage of the people also hinders the opportunity for a 3rd party to arise.

Like i said, we are really stuck between a rock and a hard place.

 

[bluesky]

This is exactly why we don't need democracy

So, how do you propose to elect/select a government without democratic right. The country does not belong to a political party. People must have voice in the process. I wonder, why (President) Ershad is not chosen as the next autocrat. He will have military behind him.

 

[Mage]

Anyone would have in all likelihood. I am talking about what Mao did specifically as Mao.

Easy to say now....Fact is China developed nukes when they were very poor. At that time only countries with very advanced industries managed to develop nukes.

China still grew because:

a) No centralised family planning program till the 80s (one child policy) i.e after Mao died
b) what @Tanveer666 said
c) GLF famine deaths were just a blip overall given the vast Size of China (and the intensity was just spread over a few years unlike the broad decades you are measuring by here)...some regions still produced grain and food (I mean enough that Mao could even still seize and export to save face). However the scale of China means that blip is several other country populations put together.....and was completely avoidable....and had zero positive results. Mao himself talked about killing off a large population of the peasantry should it be "needed":

Then why Chinese population couldn't grow similarly from 1912-48?

“When there is not enough to eat, people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill.”
Mao Zedong, 1959

Mao's Great Famine by Dikotter is a good place to start.

http://www.maoists.org/dikottermisinterpretation.htm
Who is correct? Who knows?

And next to zero because of Mao. Rather quite because of the anti-Mao forces like Deng and the fellow technocrats running the show today (and could have been running the show far earlier if Mao wasnt so power hungry and paranoid). In fact without Mao, China would have very likely been doing way better today (comparing to other Chinese societies outside PRC as reference), he sapped and crushed China's economic potential for a vast chunk of 20 - 25 years....that counts for a lot in long term momentum and capital build up too.

China is where it is now despite Mao, not because of him.

1937-45, Japan routed China. In early 1950's China fought evenly with USA.
China's economic performance during Mao's era was bad. Later Deng changed a lot of policies which made China economically prosperous. Had these policies been followed since 1950's then China today would probably be as developed as HK. But had China not gone the way it did during Mao's era it's military might and global presence would probably be much worse off.

Neither killed vast swathes of their own people....on purpose or by accident.

There are different tiers of tyrant....Mao was tier 1 in both intensity and duration.

Neither had 28 years. During Mujib's time BAKSAL and a paramilitary force(Rokkhibahini) were wrecking havoc throughout the country. Present day AL's coalition partner JSD had a lot of its members killed. And now JSD praises Mujib. Zia almost hanged the entire Air Force because of one rebellion after another. A lot of small medium scale rebellion happened in the military during Zia's rule. Zia indiscriminately hanged everyone in the brigades that rebelled. Before getting killed in a rebellion himself. They had 4 years each. And those 4 years were bloody. During Mujib's time there was a famine as well. Yet those two are venerated.

The argument though is how much of this earlier stuff was self inflicted (by precise intent) like what Mao did. Qing dynasty was just an entropy build up from the earlier peak it managed to do (like all dynasties).

Mao on the other hand came from a ascendancy situation after WW2 ended and he kicked CKS out. He has no excuse to murder and wreck on the scale he did beyond that....the country was stabilised and ready to prosper/climb....if it wasn't his area of expertise (economics), he should have sat back, become elder statesman (focus on foreign policy etc only, writing books/memoirs etc) and let the economy betters take over (people who dont have massive ego yet and can respond to situations quickly - people like those that run China largely today). But he didn't do that...he grossly intervened, and not on evidence/logic basis. This only inflicted much death and misery long and short term....for no reason and only massive negative results.

I actually agree. I don't support most of the policies by Mao....I think he once banned University entrance exams and made factories and others recommend students...lol....that sounds retreaded. But the way I see it China was better than it was after Mao. Maybe some could've done even better than what Mao did...but could've, would've should've doesn't change anything.

When you are inherently aligned to an absolute moral standard beyond human reach, it becomes exactly that, beyond human reach/control/manipulation....thus fully impervious to real human imperfections in the context of society. @Desert Fox @Psychic

Moral values predates religion actually. Read code of Ur Nammu or Code of king Hammurabi. They didn't mention religion. And they predates Ten Commandments by Moses. Actually a lot of rules in Torah came from code of King Hammurabi after being a bit modified.
Humans built communities to stick together and help each other in order to survive. In that process they made some rules for themselves to function better. It didn't require religion. Religion came later when people couldn't explain natural phenomena like Lightning, etc...they felt some higher power is there causing these things. But they never got close to those higher power...only made assumptions..that's why despite having so many religions humans couldn't find peace and compromise in any of them. They prayed to Zeus...and then prayed to Jesus....they prayed to Al-Uzza and then to Allah. What changed? Nothing. They couldn't find peace back then. They can't find peace now. Catholics fought Protestants and Orthodox....Sunnies fight Shias. Over the similar type of message. A lot of bad things have happened and still happens in this world in the name of religion.

Its lot easier than actual nation building. Not saying its absolute easy. But it discerns who can be capable at it far more quickly and with fewer long term negative consequences than peacetime nation building. That's because in the turmoil war, there is meritocracy being harnessed given there is no edifice of feelz insulation being perpetrated. Either you can unite people behind you, gain control and establish an objective....or you don't....and it correlates largely to a few specific things and qualities that you (or others that rise to that threshold to oppose/join you) have. Peacetime nation building is far more nuanced and far more sensitive long term to mistakes made on account of being too insulated from reality/pragmatism/debate. It parallels somewhat with a terrorist only needs to get lucky once, but the security forces have to succeed 100% .....but the impact of the results is dominated by the former.

Would you call 1950-70 for China peace time? I see it more of a transition period. Just like BD from 1971-90 wasn't actually peace time. But a transition period. After 1990 BD could start to develop.

So, how do you propose to elect/select a government without democratic right. The country does not belong to a political party. People must have voice in the process. I wonder, why (President) Ershad is not chosen as the next autocrat. He will have military behind him.

BD will have to deal with autocracy for a while longer before it can move to democracy....but before democracy cam have its way with BD, BD has to be more developed. Masses have to be more educated and rational. Democracy of the ignorant is probably the worst thing for a country like BD. Like @UKBengali said, BD has to have autocratic system for a while longer before the transition to democracy takes place. We all should hope that the transition will be peaceful and it won't disrupt the development.

Wait, who said I was a communist?

 

[T-Rex]

We really don't, but there are no better alternatives .

There are always better alternatives but the problem is they will create problems for the bank robbers appointed by the regime.