A Call for Objective Assessment and Accountability of the Interim Govt

The interim government under Dr Mohammed Yunus came to power amid extraordinary public expectations following the fall of the Awami League government. Many Bangladeshis viewed the transition as an opportunity to reset the country's political trajectory. Citizens hoped for institutional reform, restoration of the rule of law, greater accountability, and a return to democratic governance based on transparency and justice.

However, the record of the interim government’s 18 months remains deeply contested. While supporters point to the peaceful transfer of power after the February general election and some administrative changes, critics argue that the interim government fell significantly short of the expectations placed upon it.

One of the key promises of the interim government was to carry out comprehensive reforms of state institutions. Instead, critics contend that governance became increasingly dominated by unelected civil society figures – many of whom reportedly held foreign citizenships, an influential "kitchen cabinet," and other vested interests that exercised considerable influence without democratic accountability. Rather than promoting reconciliation, the administration has been accused of pursuing a politics of vengeance through widespread arrests and prolonged detentions of lawyers, politicians, journalists, academics, and political activists. Questions have also been raised about the absence of publicly available records indicating how many individuals were arrested, formally charged, or ultimately prosecuted during this period.

Another major criticism concerns the alleged politicisation of state institutions. According to critics, the political instability during the interim period created opportunities for the Jamaat-e-Islami and the National Citizen Party (NCP) to expand their influence within sections of the bureaucracy and other state institutions. Rather than strengthening governance, opponents argue, the period was marked by increased self-aggrandisement, patronage, and corruption.

These concerns have been reinforced by recent findings from Transparency International Bangladesh, which reported deterioration in corruption indicators during the interim administration. Critics argue that, despite its promises of clean governance, the interim government itself operated with virtually no effective mechanisms of accountability. Unlike elected governments, its advisers were not subject to meaningful parliamentary oversight or public scrutiny.

The role of former chief adviser Muhammad Yunus has also attracted significant debate. While widely respected internationally and enjoying strong support from Western governments, particularly the United States, critics argue that his administration failed to separate public office from private interests. They point to the withdrawal of corruption and tax-related cases involving Yunus and organisations affiliated with him, as well as the granting of manpower export licences to companies linked to his business interests, as examples that warrant greater public scrutiny.

Similarly, the signing of the US-Bangladesh Agreement on Reciprocal Trade has generated controversy. Supporters describe the agreement as an important step in strengthening bilateral economic relations. Critics, however, argue that it disproportionately serves American strategic and commercial interests while potentially limiting Bangladesh's long-term economic sovereignty.

Perhaps the most visible disappointment for ordinary citizens was the deterioration in law and order. Mob violence became increasingly frequent, while groups identifying themselves as "Tawhidi Janata" appeared to operate with growing confidence. Critics allege that the interim government failed to confront such groups decisively, creating an atmosphere where extra-legal actions became increasingly normalised and public confidence in law enforcement steadily declined.

Equally troubling, according to many observers, was the shrinking space for intellectual and cultural expression. Artists, academics, writers, and cultural organisations reportedly found themselves increasingly marginalised or reluctant to voice dissent. Rather than fostering pluralism, critics argue that the administration frequently used labels such as "fascist" to discredit political opponents and silence legitimate criticism. They further contend that supporters of the interim government, alongside the Jamaat and the NCP, continue to employ similar rhetoric in contemporary politics, particularly in their efforts to politically isolate the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).

The recent announcement by an 11-party alliance led by the Jamaat to launch street protests against the BNP-led government has intensified these concerns. Critics view these protests not merely as an expression of democratic opposition but as an attempt to trigger another cycle of political instability aimed at forcing regime change outside the normal constitutional process.

Given these developments, it is reasonable to argue that the Jamaat and the NCP should bear political responsibility for many of the shortcomings associated with the interim government. Both parties were significant beneficiaries of the political environment that emerged during the 18 months and are widely perceived to have expanded their institutional influence as a consequence.

Likewise, the advisers who exercised executive authority during the interim government should not be immune from scrutiny. Any allegations of abuse of power, unlawful detention, selective justice, misuse of state authority, or conflicts of interest deserve independent investigation under due process. Accountability is a cornerstone of democratic governance and should apply equally to elected and unelected administrations.

Ultimately, the interim government will be judged not by its promises but by its legacy. The aspirations of millions of Bangladeshis for institutional reform, justice, transparency, and democratic renewal remain only partially fulfilled. If Bangladesh is to move forward, every administration—past, present, and future—must be held to the same standards of accountability, regardless of political affiliation or international support. A sustainable democracy depends not on personalities but on strong institutions, the equal application of the law, and respect for democratic principles.