Is the main responsibility of the state to ensure democracy, or to keep the lives of citizens safe? This question is the most uncomfortable, but the most urgent question for states like Bangladesh today. Because in a country where people are not guaranteed to live, voting, expression of opinion, or democracy all become theoretical luxuries. The reality is that when criminals and mafias establish a stronghold within the state, the state itself stands against the citizens. Then democracy is no longer the power of the people, but becomes a shield for criminals.
The current situation in Bangladesh is going through that terrible conflict, on the one hand the demand for so-called democracy, and on the other hand the extreme crisis of civil security. Extortion, murder, rape, kidnapping, encroachment, drug trafficking are no longer descriptions of isolated crimes, but rather the identity of an entire system. In this system, the criminals are not alone; behind them is political shelter, administrative silence, and social legitimacy.
The basic idea of democracy is the power of the people. But the question is which people? When a large part of society cannot stand up against criminals due to fear, partisan blindness and opportunism, then whose power does that people have? In reality, it goes to gang leaders, mafia dons, political bosses and their patron leaders. Democracy then no longer becomes the voice of the common people, but rather a strategic weapon of criminal networks.
By a criminal-mafia state, we do not mean just an excess of crime; we mean a state system where criminals operate within the rules, not outside them. They avoid prosecution, get bail, influence investigations, buy witnesses, use the media, and become part of political agendas. As a result, crime management, rather than crime suppression, becomes the unspoken policy of the state.
This is where citizen security suffers the most. A common man knows that if he protests injustice, the state will not protect him. The police will not take the case, years will pass in the court process, and the criminal will threaten him from outside. This culture of fear rots democracy from within. Because a frightened citizen can never be a free citizen.
Many say that the solution to the problem is more democracy. But the question is, what will happen if democracy is controlled by criminals? In reality, the more intense the political competition, the more the demand for criminals increases. They show their strength in rallies and meetings, suppress the opposition, and exert influence in the voting field. As a result, criminals become an indispensable part of politics. In this reality, democracy is no longer a moral rule, but a game of power.
The example of El Salvador, while internationally controversial, is not to be ignored here. The answer to the question of how a state that has long been in the hands of criminal gangs has suddenly been able to ensure citizen security makes us uneasy. Because that answer contradicts the conventional definition of democracy. There, strict state power has been exercised, there have been allegations of human rights violations, but at the same time, ordinary people have found safety in the streets.
This reality presents us with a brutal truth: democracy is meaningless without the rule of law. If democracy is a shield for criminals, then it becomes the citizen’s right to break that democracy. Because the first contract of the state is the contract with the citizen to protect his life and property. If that contract is broken, the moral legitimacy of the state is questioned.
The most dangerous aspect of Bangladesh is the social legitimacy of crime. A murderer is called a political activist, an extortionist is called an organizer, an usurper is called an influential person. A section of the media, so-called intellectuals and talk show culture further strengthen this legitimacy. Instead of calling a criminal a criminal, they make him a ‘controversial’, a ‘victim of opposing views’ or a ‘victim of political vendetta’. This breaks the sense of justice of the common people.
In such a society, no matter how much the courts, police or administration show the law, it is not effective. Because the law then exists on paper, not in reality. The rule of law does not mean just having the law; it means having the fear of the law. When that fear is not in the minds of the criminal, then the citizens are afraid. The state then becomes a state of the strong, not a state of justice.
The hardest truth here is that a soft state is not always humane. Sometimes a soft state is the most inhumane, because it sacrifices ordinary people instead of suppressing criminals. If a state claims to be democratic by sacrificing the safety of children, women, working people, and pedestrians, then that democracy is actually a kind of cruel deception.
Of course, a strong state does not mean dictatorship. A strong state is a state where the law is equal for all, where political identity cannot be a shield for crime, where the media is not free to spread rumors, but is responsible, and where the courts can rule without fear. Without this strength, democracy is just a word, not a reality.
For Bangladesh, the question is not a simple conflict of “democracy or dictatorship.” The real question is whether it is a state of criminals and mafia or a state of citizens. If the state is in the hands of criminals, then no matter how much that state holds elections and talks about the constitution, it is not safe for the citizens. And democracy cannot survive in a state without security; only the struggle for power can survive.
No ideal democracy can be sustainable without ensuring citizen security. First, crime suppression, first, rule of law, first, accountability, and then gradually political freedom becomes meaningful. We are seeing what happens when we go the other way: anarchy in the name of democracy, violence in the name of freedom, the legalization of rumors and murder in the name of expression.
Breaking the criminal-mafia state is not easy, but it is not impossible either. This requires courageous leadership, political will to suppress crime regardless of party affiliation, and the moral stance of society. To protect democracy, it must first be rescued from the hands of criminals. Otherwise, democracy itself will become the biggest enemy of civil security.
This is the hard truth of democracy: without the rule of law, it becomes its opposite. And a state that is afraid to admit this truth cannot ultimately protect its citizens.
