For all latest news, follow the Daily Sun's Google News channel.
The people of Bangladesh have repeatedly struggled, sacrificed and given their lives for democracy. Yet, more than half a century after independence, the task of establishing democracy as a stable, secure and effective system of government remains unfinished.
One-party rules, military intervention, partisan domination and the erosion of electoral credibility have, at different stages, restricted the people’s rights.
Today, therefore, citizens expect more than an elected government. They want politics that respect their votes, protect dissent, reject corruption and ensure that nobody suffers persecution because of political affiliation.
The new government’s greatest responsibility is to translate these expectations into the everyday practice of governance. The history of Bangladesh’s birth is inseparable from the question of respecting the people’s mandate. Prolonged discrimination under Pakistani rule and the denial of democratic rights strengthened the Bengali struggle for independence.
Establishing an independent state was therefore about more than acquiring territory. It was also about securing human dignity, political rights and the freedom to determine the nation’s future. Unless the principle that sovereignty belongs to the people operates in practice, the political promise of independence remains incomplete. A government represents the people; the people are not a subordinate community expected to demonstrate unquestioning loyalty to the government.
Following independence, the Constitution of 1972 recognised democracy as a fundamental principle of the state. However, the Fourth Amendment in 1975 replaced parliamentary government with a presidential system, while the subsequent establishment of the one-party BAKSAL structure marked a major departure from multiparty democracy. This experience offers an important lesson: a parliamentary majority can itself be used to weaken democratic institutions. Popularity or electoral legitimacy does not automatically make every government decision democratic. Limits on power, citizens’ rights and opportunities for opposition must remain protected. The assassinations of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and political upheavals of 1975 were followed by prolonged military influence and rule.
In 1982, the removal of elected President Abdus Sattar by Hussain Muhammad Ershad dealt another serious blow to constitutional continuity. These experiences demonstrate that unconstitutional changes of power cannot provide a lasting solution to political crises. When political institutions fail, opportunities arise for intervention by other forces, but such intervention can make democracy’s foundations even more uncertain. Political leaders must prevent disputes from reaching the point where normal constitutional processes cease to function.
The mass movement of 1990 and the election of 1991 created an opportunity for democratic renewal. The election held on 27 February 1991 was regarded by contemporary observers as among the country’s freest and fairest. Parliamentary government was restored through the Twelfth Amendment later that year.
These achievements demonstrated that political agreement and public mobilisation could bring about constructive institutional change. Nevertheless, restoring the parliamentary system was only the beginning. Making Parliament effective, ensuring accountability within political parties and protecting institutional independence required further sustained work.
Political mistrust subsequently intensified over the transfer of power and the administration of elections. The election crisis of 1996 demands for a neutral election-time arrangement and the competitive elections that followed revealed both the possibilities and weaknesses of Bangladesh’s democracy. The change of government through the 2001 election demonstrated that voters could replace those in power. Yet parliamentary boycotts, confrontational street politics and attempts to marginalise opponents continued to weaken democratic practice. Holding elections regularly and maintaining a democratic political culture are separate achievements.
The crisis of 2006-2007 again demonstrated that the collapse of confidence in electoral arrangements could place the entire state in uncertainty. A prolonged emergency-backed interim administration preceded the restoration of elected government through the 2008 election. Unfortunately, the enduring lessons of that crisis were not sufficiently embedded in institutions. When the governing party treats electoral arrangements as an instrument of advantage and the opposition regards them as fundamentally untrustworthy, the conditions for another crisis remain. The 2014 election exposed a profound problem of democratic representation. Following the boycott by the main opposition alliance, candidates in 153 of the 300 general parliamentary constituencies were elected unopposed. Voting took place in only 147 constituencies. According to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, this was the first national election after the constitutional provision for a caretaker government had been abolished in 2011. When more than half the parliamentary seats required no vote, serious questions arose about public participation and meaningful electoral choice.
Although the main opposition participated in the 2018 election, allegations of vote rigging, intimidation and violence damaged its credibility. The government rejected those allegations, while a human rights organisation expressed concern. The central lesson is that opening polling stations and announcing ballot totals are insufficient. Candidates must be able to campaign, voters must feel safe, administrators must act impartially, and complaints must receive credible consideration. An election is an entire political process, rather than an event confined to polling day. Public anger against Sheikh Hasina’s prolonged authoritarian rule extended beyond disputed elections. Political repression, abuse of power, inequality and the absence of accountability also contributed to the crisis.
The United Nations human rights investigation into the suppression of the 2024 protests documented its severity. It estimated that as many as 1,400 people may have been killed between 1 July and 15 August, with children accounting for approximately 12-13 per cent of those killed. The same report recorded the police’s statement that 44 officers had died. These are investigative findings and estimates, rather than final judicial determinations, but they provide important evidence of the scale of violence.
After such enormous human suffering, democratic reconstruction cannot mean merely installing another government. Justice is required for bereaved families, injured protesters, victims of torture and members of minority communities who suffered violence.
The UN report also documented retaliatory killings and attacks against religious and indigenous groups. Accountability must therefore apply equally. Investigating past crimes is essential, but committing fresh injustices in the name of accountability would undermine the moral foundation of political change. Against this background, the election of 12 February 2026 created an important opportunity. In the Election Commission’s announcement on 13 February, unofficial results from 297 constituencies showed the Bangladesh Nationalist Party winning 209 seats and Jamaat-e-Islami winning 68. Parliamentary voter turnout was reported at 59.44 per cent. Tarique Rahman subsequently took office as prime minister on 17 February. These facts establish the new government’s electoral foundation. However, the true value of its mandate will be determined by how it exercises power.
European Union observers described the election as credible, identifying it as the first genuinely competitive national election since 2008. Nevertheless, the Awami League’s exclusion must also be acknowledged when assessing the political environment. Democratic progress should be recognised while questions of future participation, individual criminal responsibility and lawful political rights receive careful consideration.
A successful election opens the door to democratic reconstruction; it does not complete that reconstruction. The change people now demand is fundamentally a change in political behaviour. Citizens do not want a transfer of power that merely changes who controls extortion, occupation of property or access to contracts. Partisan domination of markets, transport, educational institutions and local administration is incompatible with democracy. The new government’s first moral test is its treatment of offenders within its own ranks. Firmness against opponents combined with protection for supporters would reproduce the old system under a new political identity.
Ending political violence requires more than speeches. Party leaders must make clear that extortion, assault, intimidation and illegal occupation are not legitimate political activities. Complaints require impartial investigation, evidence-based action and appropriate disciplinary measures within parties.
Expulsion from a party, however, cannot replace criminal proceedings where an offence has occurred. Equally, allegations must not become a means of harassing innocent people. The law must follow its own course, with political leadership supporting its impartial application. Another fundamental responsibility is to restore public administration as a professional service rather than a structure of partisan loyalty.
Recruitment, promotion and transfer should reflect competence, integrity and performance. Wholesale political replacement following a change of government often produces a new pattern of allegiance instead of neutrality. Officials implicated in crimes or serious misconduct should face evidence-based action, but others should not be judged through assumptions about political identity. Public servants work for the state and its citizens, not as the personal employees of a political party.
Making Parliament effective is equally important. A commanding majority does not make parliamentary debate unnecessary. Indeed, greater concentration of power requires stronger safeguards against abuse.
Important legislation deserves adequate scrutiny, expert input and assessment of its public consequences. Parliamentary committees should be able to examine expenditure, ministerial performance and policy outcomes. Opposition questions should be treated as part of the government’s responsibility to explain itself. Answering difficult questions is a normal obligation of democratic office.
The opposition must also adopt constructive political practices. Automatically rejecting every government initiative, or disrupting livelihoods in the name of political programmes, does not constitute responsible opposition. Its role is to identify weaknesses, propose alternatives and demand accountability through Parliament and peaceful public activity. The government must learn to hear criticism without regarding it as a threat to its existence. Opposition parties must demonstrate the capacity to govern as well as the ambition to gain power. Political competition should strengthen the republic’s functioning.
Democracy is also needed within political parties. When wealth, personal loyalty and influential networks dominate candidate selection, capable and honest citizens are pushed aside. Greater transparency is necessary in party finances, decision-making and leadership selection. Women, young people and locally respected individuals need meaningful opportunities to participate.
Student politics should cultivate knowledge, leadership and the defence of legitimate rights. It should not operate as a force for controlling educational institutions. A healthier national political culture requires healthier political organisation. The fight against corruption will be a central test of the new government’s credibility.
In Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index for 2025, Bangladesh scored 24 out of 100 and ranked 150th among 182 countries. The index measures perceptions of public-sector corruption rather than providing a direct inventory of every corrupt act. Nevertheless, its findings indicate a deeply entrenched problem that cannot disappear through a change of government alone. The decisions, interests and failures of accountability that enable corruption must be addressed.
Transparency is essential in public procurement, project selection, lending and asset management. Citizens should receive regular information about the cost and progress of major projects. Politically influential individuals and organisation must face the same standards as everyone else.
Selective use of anti-corruption institutions against opponents encourages offenders to seek partisan protection. Independent investigation, reliable evidence and impartial adjudication are necessary for lasting progress. Financial accountability must also be pursued carefully so that ordinary employees do not avoid additional losses. Democratic expectations are closely connected to economic wellbeing.
Food prices, employment, business security and public services shape people’s everyday assessment of government. Political reform must therefore accompany practical improvements in production, supply systems, investment and jobs. Citizens cannot fully enjoy freedom when conducting business requires paying extortion or obtaining employment depends on political connections. Competitive markets, efficient administration and fair opportunity are foundations of economic inclusion as well as sound governance.
Rebuilding confidence in policing and justice is particularly urgent. Citizens should be able to seek protection at a police station without fearing that their political identity will make them suspects. Complaint handling, investigations and prosecution require professional standards. Police personnel also need safety, training, appropriate working conditions and accountability.
Protecting innocent people is as important as bringing offenders before the law. Mob attacks and so-called public justice cannot replace the state’s judicial responsibilities. Accountability for enforced disappearance, torture, extrajudicial killing and political violence must proceed alongside institutional reform. Punishing a few individuals while preserving the structures that enabled abuse leaves the risk of recurrence intact. Powers of command, detention and interrogation, complaint investigation and independent oversight all require examination. Medical treatment, rehabilitation and assistance for victims’ families are also state responsibilities. Justice should establish safeguards against future wrongdoing.
The dignity and professional responsibilities of the armed forces and other state institutions must likewise be protected. They should not be used as partisan instruments or regarded as permanent substitutes for resolving political and administrative problems.
The government must strengthen civilian administration and law enforcement so that ordinary governance is carried out through the appropriate institutions. Maintaining military professionalism, training and national defence preparedness serves the country’s long-term interests. Constitutional civilian control and professional standards must reinforce each other.
Freedom of expression is essential for assessing whether these reforms are working. Newspapers, researchers, civic organisation and ordinary citizens must be able to question government safely. Strong criticism and criminal threats are different matters, and the government must respect that distinction. Advertising, litigation and administrative privileges should not be used to secure media loyalty. The media, in turn, must verify information, correct errors and distinguish reporting from political advocacy.
National agreement is needed on institutional reform. The government, opposition parties and other stakeholders should discuss which changes are urgent, how they will be implemented and how implementation will be scrutinised.
The Election Commission reported substantial support for change in the referendum held alongside the parliamentary election. That verdict deserves serious attention. Nevertheless, each reform requires specific proposals, lawful procedures and a clear public explanation. Published timetables and progress reports would build greater confidence than broad promises alone.
The new government should therefore establish clear priorities. Public order, political extortion, economic relief and citizen services require visible progress, while deeper reforms of justice, elections, administration and economic institutions need sustained planning. Citizens should be told how many complaints have been resolved, whether service delays have declined and how much public expenditure information is accessible. Political achievement must be demonstrated through people’s experience.
He can be reached at [email protected]