Demoralization-led migration in Bangladesh: A sense of insecurity-based decision-making model
| Published date | 01 December 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/2057891119867140 |
| Author | Ahmed Shafiqul Huque,AKM Ahsan Ullah |
| Date | 01 December 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Research articles |
Asian Journal of Comparative Politics
2020, Vol. 5(4) 351–370
Demoralization-led migration
ª The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
in Bangladesh: A sense of
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2057891119867140
insecurity-based decision-
journals.sagepub.com/home/acp
making model
AKM Ahsan Ullah
Geography and Development Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS),
Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Brunei Darussalam
Ahmed Shafiqul Huque
Department of Political Science, McMaster University, Canada
Abstract
Political hostility, unrest and flawed governance cause insecurity leading to demoralization, which
triggers migration. There is a large body of literature on the determinants of international
migration that highlights a range of factors to explain the direction and strength of migrant flows.
For this research we interviewed 32 respondents who were a control group in a study conducted a
decade ago. These respondents were determined not to migrate, but their migration decision was
reversed over a period of 10 years. This article explores the relation between a sense of insecurity
and the demoralization that influences migration decisions. It further investigates the causes that
contributed to this change. As democracy shrinks, authoritarianism expands, implying that there is
no accountability. This leads a country to widespread corruption, creating severe social injustices.
People in general become demoralized and decide to migrate out. This article adds to the body of
work by focusing on whether the migration decision is a response to widespread corruption,
prevailing political conditions, violence, conflict, poor governance, an absence of rule of law and
freedom or declining of democratic space in Bangladesh.
Keywords
demoralization, fear, freedom, human rights, migration, threat
Corresponding author:
AKM Ahsan Ullah, Geography and Development Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS), Universiti Brunei
Darussalam, Jalan Tunku Link, Gadong, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam.
Email: ahsan.ullah@ubd.edu.bn
352
Asian Journal of Comparative Politics 5(4)
Introduction
The reasons for which people migrate determine the categories of migration. In the literature, the
dominant categories are reluctant migrants, economic migrants, desperate and forced migrants and
refugees. These various kinds of migration depend on the volume of people involved, the direction
they move in, the time they spend in migrating and the nature of that migration. However, there
have always been some people who are against the idea of migration. Some people tend to cling to
their land purely from patriotism. There is evidence that some who were at one time reluctant to
migrate change their mind later. Those who had never thought of migrating out, eventually actively
plan to migrate. What might explain this change in intention? On various occasions, we met many
returned migrants in Bangladesh of different skill categories and asked what made them return
(Ullah, 2010, 2013, 2014). ‘Heroism’ was the primary motivation, according to them. To these
migrants, heroism signifies an urge to return to their homeland and contribute to nation building.
However, they regret their return and are looking for opportunities overseas for themselves or their
children. They advise their children to keep an alternative for moving out anytime, if necessary.
This means a drastic change from a position of ‘against’ to ‘strong volition’. Of course, questions
arise: what made them think of the drastic change? A reconnaissance among potential respondents
revealed an interesting factor, which they describe as ‘demoralization’. This sentiment was the
major factor that influenced the change. Migration studies have generated a huge amount of
literature, but discussion of the factors that lead to demoralization is conspicuous by its absence.
It is well established that refugees leave their own soil under duress when no option for survival
is left to them or there is a possibility of persecution for a range of reasons (Ullah, 2007, 2009,
2014). In these cases, the driving forces are evident, known and precise. However, there are some
factors that seem to be distantly related to migration but closely related to demoralization that
make people decide to move out. Demoralization gradually creates a culture of fear and dis-
comfort among citizens. This article looks into two different scenarios: migration decisions a
decade ago (in 2009) and a decade later (in 2019). The second scenario depicts how potential
migrants think about their migration possibilities today, and the first one depicts how they
perceived migration 10 years ago. This article shows a change in migration decisions over the
last decade. Why did they not want to migrate before but want to do so now? What has happened
in a decade to make them change their minds so drastically? Earlier, they thought it was
impossible to leave their roots, their family, friends, neighbours and relatives, and now moving
out has become one of their main priorities.
Migration research has extensively analysed the classic push and pull factors of human
mobility (Castles and Miller, 1998; Han, 2010; Lee, 1966; Massey et al., 2007). However, it
has not taken the complex relationship between migration and internal political disorder or poor
governance into account. Apart from a few exceptions, there is little reflection on the concept of
security, which forms the basis of common assumptions about the relationship between migra-
tion and the feeling of insecurity in one’s home country (Bank et al., 2017) leading to demor-
alization. Some scholars have attempted to connect this with an alarming drop in tolerance in
domestic and international politics due to political rivalries and self-interest (Gibney et al., 1996;
Williams and Pradhan, 2009).
The complexity of human migration is often reduced in public discourse, with simplistic con-
nections being made between migration and political intolerance (Edmonston, 1992; Weiner, 1996;
Zolberg et al., 1989). A common claim is that the root causes for current migration movements to
Ullah and Huque
353
safer destinations lie at the meso level, i.e. people flee from a repressive authoritarian regime (Bank
et al., 2017; Davenport et al., 2003; Moore and Shellman, 2004; Schmeidl, 1997).
Bangladesh has witnessed a range of political systems, including a one-party system, a military
dictatorship, an electoral democracy and a caretaker government system. Owing to the lack of trust
between the two largest political parties (the Bangladesh Awami League (BAL) and the Bangla-
desh Nationalist Party (BNP)), the provision of a caretaker government system was introduced. It
would be vested with executive power for three months, to perform routine governing tasks and
mainly to hold free and fair elections to facilitate the transition of government. The BAL amended
the provision of caretaker government and decided to hold elections under the ruling party by
ruthlessly suppressing the opposition voice. This created political chaos, resulting in the boycott of
the 10th national election by the major opposition parties. Since the election of 2014, the current
government has effectively been trying to eliminate the opposition and to revive a single-party
system (like BaKSAL)1 (Institute for Human Rights & Business, 2014). There have been hints of a
revival of BaKSAL, which has created discomfort among the people. Little is known about the
interplay between individual migration decisions and domestic political discomfort, intolerance,
poor governance and feelings of insecurity. Since the independence of Bangladesh in 1971, no
government has been in power consecutively for more than two terms (five years constitute one
term). This government has been in office uncontested and unchallenged for the longest time ever,
which has made them overconfident, and this might have contributed to the authoritarian tenden-
cies of the ruling political party leadership.
A range of factors shape the motivations for migration; however, it was not widely known that
political suffocation could create such a condition that people desperately try to escape from. The
feeling of insecurity is a dynamic phenomenon, which can (and does) continuously change with
respect to its form, intensity, geographical reach, nature and the number of actors involved. Migration
can occur as people respond to ‘push factors’ linked to conflict, poverty, insecurity, fear, political
repression, climate change, state fragility and civil war (Kamal, 2019; Sisk, 2017). In order to deal
with and to operationalize such complexity, we unpack how the sense of insecurity has developed in
Bangladesh (Bank et al., 2017; Ullah, 2016, 2018; Ullah and Azizuddin, 2018) (Figure 1).
The correlation between political climate, poor governance and migration has been established
in a good number of empirical researches (Alesina and Perotti, 1996; Mayda et al., 2018). Of
course, there is historical evidence of politics-migration dynamics as well of politics instigating
migration. We argue that migration studies and issues of insecurity generated by political disorder
in particular should be put into a meaningful academic debate in order to gain comprehensive
insights about the migration decision and insecurity nexus. We argue that those who did not think
of migrating just a decade ago have changed their intention to migrate due to the decline in the
quality of governance in their country.
Objectives and methodology
This...
To continue reading
Request your trial