Bangladesh was born of the desire of the Bengali ethnic majority population of what was East Pakistan (itself a creation of the partition of India in 1947) to have its own Nation State encompassing its very distinct history and cultural identity, so different from that of West Pakistan. From the 1950's an autonomy/independence movement began in East Pakistan and by the late 1960's the military regimes in West Pakistan began to disregard the legal and human rights of East Pakistan.

After a vicious liberation war in 1970-1971 Bangladesh independence was achieved, but began with the two political flaws which have bedevilled this country since then: the role of the military and the role of the families of the two generally accepted founders of the country. 

Major Ziaur Rahman is the undisputed 'proclaimer of independence' by means of a radio broadcast, but Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was the historic leader of the independence movement from the late 1950's till the early 1970's, and after independence became Prime Minister until his assassination in 1975.  So the political heirs of Sheikh Mujibur claim him as the father of the country ( a claim to which he has much right) whilst the political heirs of Major Ziaur Rahman (who became military ruler of Bangladesh shortly after the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur,  until his own assassination in 1981) also claim Ziaur as the father of the country (again a claim to which Ziaur has much right as he not only proclaimed independence but also fought brilliantly in the liberation war). There have been no democratically elected governments in Bangladesh since independence which have not sworn allegiance to the heritage of either Sheikh Mujibur (the Awami league is led by his daughter Sheikh Hasina Wajid) or to General Ziaur (the BNP party is led by his widow Khaleda Zia). Thus Bangladeshi democratic politics since independence has turned on a what is in essence a family rivalry.

The other flaw which has bedevilled Bangladesh politics is the role of the Military. Perhaps due to the virus being imported from Pakistan with its almost uninterrupted series of military rulers, the Bangladesh Army has intervened three times in the democratic life of the country. Their argument every time has been that they are ensuring the 'Territorial Integrity and survival of the country'. The obvious counter argument is that the Bangladesh constitutions means for the army to defend the EXTERNAL borders of the country, and not for it to interfere in internal matters. But in 1975 General Rahman took power and held it until 1981 (admitedly in  a time of extreme confusion after the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur, and General Rahman did hold elections in 1978) whilst in 1982 (one year after the assassination of General Rahman) General Ershad seized power and held it until 1990 when popular pressure forced him to step down. This year the army again seized power on 11 January 2007 under the pretext that the elections scheduled for later that month 'could not fairly be held'. Since January 2007 the army has ruled indirectly but is certainly in charge.

Poor Bangladesh with two such horrible devils - the rule of two families, even though they have always come to power democratically, and the rule of the Generals, which in every case came to power illegally - leading to an imperfect political and democratic life.

Moudud Ahmed is probably the leading opponent of army rule in Bangladesh and certainly the country's leading proponent of and expert on constitutional rule of law politics.