Bangladesh’s recurring political crises are best understood not as sudden ruptures, but as part of a longer, deeply entrenched pattern. Power transitions in the country have rarely been smooth, and even electoral transfers have often resulted in winner-takes-all governance that marginalises or crushes the opposition. The turbulence witnessed since August 2024 is thus less an aberration and more a continuation of Bangladesh’s troubled democratic journey—with serious implications for regional stability and India’s neighbourhood diplomacy.
A History of Zero-Sum Politics
Since the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1975, Bangladesh has oscillated between military rule and personalised civilian politics. Democratic competition hardened into a binary struggle between Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina, where electoral victory translated into near-absolute control of the state.
An exception came in 1991, when both leaders united to overthrow military ruler Hussain Muhammad Ershad. Notably, Ershad was not subjected to violent retribution and remained politically active until his death in 2019—highlighting a restraint that appears absent in today’s political climate.
Democratic Deficits Across Regimes
While Sheikh Hasina’s recent governance record has attracted international criticism, Bangladesh’s democratic erosion predates her tenure. Military regimes institutionalised authoritarian practices, and civilian governments often perpetuated them. Khaleda Zia herself failed to extend her rule beyond constitutional limits, amid allegations of corruption and abuse of power, the consequences of which were borne by her family, including her son’s forced exile.
Against this backdrop, selective moral outrage—particularly from Western capitals—sits uneasily with Bangladesh’s broader governance history. The country has seldom functioned as a liberal democratic model, regardless of who held power.
Post-2024 Vacuum and the Rise of New Beneficiaries
The political vacuum following August 2024 has produced unexpected winners. Right-wing Islamist forces led by Jamaat-e-Islami and Pakistan have emerged as key beneficiaries of the disorder. Both have exploited institutional weakness and public anger, while the primary losers remain ordinary citizens—especially Bangladesh’s youth.
Anti-India narratives have been actively promoted, framing India as a convenient external enemy. This messaging, however, has limited resonance among the broader population, many of whom are more concerned with employment, prices, and personal security than ideological posturing.
The Yunus Moment and Institutional Capture
The elevation of Muhammad Yunus as a moral counterpoint to traditional politics has not delivered the promised democratic renewal. Over the past 16 months, key institutions have reportedly fallen under the influence of right-wing Islamist elements embedded within the ruling establishment.
Signs of this shift are visible: a muted media fearful of reprisals, the return of mob justice, and the erosion of rule-based governance. Rather than stabilising the system, the interim arrangement has deepened uncertainty.
Elections as Exit—But with Structural Constraints
Holding elections remains the most credible pathway out of the current impasse. Yet the conditions for free and fair polls are fragile. A credible election requires a neutral state machinery—something difficult to ensure amid weakened institutions and competing street power.
The impending return of Tarique Rahman after 17 years in exile is likely to intensify political mobilisation. What began as a tactical alliance between the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Jamaat against the Awami League may soon turn into open competition, with Jamaat seeking to capitalise on its organisational head start—possibly without waiting for elections.
An electoral process that excludes the Awami League would struggle for legitimacy, both domestically and internationally.
India’s Calculus and Regional Stakes
India has signalled its readiness to engage with any political dispensation that emerges in Dhaka, while remaining alert to Pakistan’s attempts to regain strategic influence. New Delhi’s approach reflects realism rather than endorsement, recognising both Bangladesh’s internal agency and the regional consequences of prolonged instability.
At the same time, actions perceived as hostile to India—such as tacit tolerance of attacks on minorities—would ultimately undermine Bangladesh’s own stability rather than alter regional power equations.
The Silent Majority and the Road Ahead
Amid elite rivalries and ideological battles, Bangladesh’s silent majority remains largely unheard. This segment of society seeks normalcy, accountable governance, and economic opportunity rather than perpetual political confrontation.
Whether Bangladesh can move beyond its zero-sum politics will depend on restoring institutional balance, conducting inclusive elections, and resisting external manipulation. The coming weeks may determine whether the country breaks from its historical cycle—or slips deeper into it.
What to Note for Prelims?
- Key political parties: Awami League, BNP, Jamaat-e-Islami
- Major leaders and their historical roles
- Pakistan’s influence in Bangladesh politics
- India–Bangladesh relations and sensitivities
What to Note for Mains?
- Structural causes of democratic instability in Bangladesh
- Role of political personalities versus institutions
- Impact of Islamist politics on state capacity
- India’s neighbourhood policy amid regime uncertainty
