Bangladesh In Transition: Facing Uncertainty Under The Transitional Regime – Analysis

In the aftermath of Bangladesh’s political upheaval, a cloud of uncertainty gathers, casting an ominous shadow over the interim government. The transient regime, born out of chaos, now finds itself caught in a labyrinth of crises—political, administrative, and economic—that threaten the very structure of the state and society. The once-steady bureaucracy appears to be failing, the civil administration teeters on the brink, and across the nation, a wave of anxiety swells, threatening to drown any semblance of control. Reports say that the interim government reels under the mounting pressure, making the restoration of order a daunting task in a nation desperately struggling to regain stability. 

Questions are emerging if the upheaval and its aftermath are steering Bangladesh in a precarious direction. For instance, The Daily Star editorial on August 20 expressed concern about the turmoil affecting the civil administration after the fall of the Awami League government, which caused significant disruptions in regular activities and services. A report by the newspaper highlighted that the disorder, largely due to a lack of competent leadership, has taken hold in the ministries located at the Secretariat Building, with frequent processions observed throughout the past week. The editorial stressed the need for careful management of this situation to prevent the chaos from escalating into a complete breakdown of public services. It concluded: “This state of affairs cannot continue. A civil administration cannot continue to be dysfunctional, just as the police force cannot wallow in uncertainty.” Thus, the nation appears to be grappling with an unprecedented bustle of uncertainty, leaving many to wonder if this sitation will further deepen the crisis. 

Unrest and Pay-offs 

The political upheaval in Bangladesh is not without precedent, as each instance has brought its own outcomes. The country has a long history of political activism and uprisings, even before its birth in 1971.  From the student movements in East Pakistan in 1948 to the significant protests in the 1950s, 1960s, and during the Liberation War of 1970-71, these events have shaped the nation’s identity and political destiny. At the core of these uprisings were issues of linguistic identity, secular options, and a federal and equitable share under the existing dispensations.  

Since gaining independence, Bangladesh has experienced several mass movements, including the 1990 anti-autocracy movement and the 2018 student-led protests. These historical events laid the groundwork for this year’s uprising, highlighting that the roots of the current unrest are deeply linked with the nation’s longstanding tradition of resistance against authoritarianism.

The uprising took a major turn on August 5 when Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, a long-standing figure in Bangladeshi politics, resigned following mounting protests. What began as a response to a controversial job quota system quickly turned into a nationwide movement fed by widespread discontent over corruption, massive unemployment, poverty, and social inequality. 

Initially led by students, the protests soon attracted a wide range of participants, including marginalized groups and other religious elements, frustrated with the system in place. The government’s attempts to suppress the unrest only intensified the protests. The violence that erupted during this period led to the loss of hundreds of lives, with unrest spreading to almost all districts.  The scale of the upheaval indicated a significant shift in the political system, as the people of Bangladesh demanded more than just surface-level reforms.

Competing Narratives and Interpretations

There are different narratives regarding what truly led to the upheaval. A major narrative suggests that the uprising was a natural and spontaneous response to years of accumulated frustration and grievances, which seems more credible. 

However, there are those who speculate that foreign powers played a role in fuelling the unrest for their own strategic gains, frequently pointing to the influence of the US, Pakistan, and even China. Sheikh Hasina alleged that the United States orchestrated her downfall in a bid to secure St. Martin’s Island for strategic purposes. While this claim adds fuel to the fire of conspiracy, it remains largely exaggerated and unverified. 

Addressing the allegation, White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre unequivocally dismissed claims of U.S. involvement, stating that reports or rumours over American role in these events were false. He said: “This is a decision made by the Bangladeshi people, for the Bangladeshi people. We believe that the future of Bangladesh should be determined by its own citizens, and that remains our stance.”  

Whispers of Pakistan’s involvement in the crisis have also gained traction, with the weight of history between the two nations aggravating the problem. Some believe that Pakistan might be quietly backing Islamist groups like Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) of Bangladesh to steer the political winds in the country. Yet, the reality is more complex—JeI’s limited social influence and weak electoral backing cast doubt on this theory. As the narrative unfolds, any claims of Pakistan orchestrating the recent regime change remain largely in the realm of speculation, lacking the concrete evidence needed to turn suspicion into fact. Moreover, responding to the media reports, Pakistan Foreign Office also firmly rejected these claims, emphasizing that Pakistan had no involvement in the events that occurred in Bangladesh. 

China’s position, as expressed by experts, suggests that the protests in Bangladesh were primarily driven by economic factors rather than solely political motives. The country’s dense population and significant youth demographic in need of employment, combined with inflation and economic challenges, likely intensified the unrest. However, after the job quota policy was rescinded, the situation evolved into a broader political movement rather than calming down, China said. 

Yet another narrative, gaining currency in India, suggests that Islamist groups, like JeI, were instrumental in fuelling the protests, aiming to shape the outcome of the crisis. This, however, did not reflect in India’s official position. In a suo moto statement to Parliament, External Affairs Minister Jaishankar acknowledged that since the January 2024 election, Bangladesh had experienced significant political tension, deepening divides, and increasing polarization. These underlying issues exacerbated a student protest that began in June, which escalated into widespread violence, he said without taking any position on ‘external’ factors. According to Shivshankar Menon, former National Security Adviser under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who also served as Foreign Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, what transpired in Bangladesh was a stark reminder of the consequences when a regime becomes disconnected from its people, highlighted the critical nature of maintaining a close relationship between a government and its citizens.  Many also agreed that it would be an oversimplification to downplay the significant role that secular political forces played in toppling the Hasina regime. However, each of these narratives provides a divergent viewpoint on the upheaval, offering different implications for how both domestic and international actors might respond to the evolving situation. 

Catalyst for the Upheaval

Plausibly, the political movement revealed underlying frustrations among the youth, who constitute two-thirds of the population, and other marginalized groups in Bangladesh. The protests were not merely about the quota system but reflected a broader demand for change in the face of perceived systemic injustices. With nearly 650,000 graduates entering the job market every year, and competing for a meagre 3,000 government jobs in a country grappling with severe unemployment, the quota system naturally upset their aspirations.

Sheikh Hasina’s tenure presented a paradox. Over more than a decade and a half, her leadership was claimed to have driven significant economic growth and infrastructure development in Bangladesh. Her government, while projecting a secular image, maintained an atmosphere that was generally accommodating to minorities. Under her administration, Bangladesh’s international profile rose, particularly for its economic achievements. For example, Bangladesh was reported to have made significant progress, fulfilling all three eligibility criteria for graduation from the UN’s Least Developed Countries (LDC) list, and has been on track to be officially recognized as a developing country in 2026. However, challenges still remained. Despite the economic progress, extreme poverty, discrimination, and exclusion of marginalized groups persisted. The poverty rate stood at 24.3 percent, with 12.9 percent living in extreme poverty, according to the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS). Approximately 20 million extremely poor people, primarily dependent on manual labour, were struggling to find regular employment, trapping them in a cycle of poverty and malnutrition.

Gender inequality aggravated these issues, with women more likely to live in extreme poverty than men. Around 11 percent of rural households were female-headed, and 28 percent of these lived in extreme poverty, facing significant socioeconomic and nutritional challenges. While children’s nutritional status improved over the past decade, stunting in children under five remained 20 percent higher in rural areas compared to urban regions. Besides, over 70 percent of the population is vulnerable to climatic shocks, including floods, droughts, cyclones, salinity intrusion, and sea-level rise. Certain regions of Bangladesh are particularly affected by these climatic, economic, and socio-political challenges, according to Bangladesh sources. 

Meanwhile, the country’s economic progress was abruptly halted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which dealt a severe blow to the nation’s economy, echoing the struggles seen in neighbouring Sri Lanka and Pakistan. All of this ultimately culminated in her ousting on August 5.

Despite any accomplishments during Hasina’s tenure, her regime came under severe criticism for its authoritarian policies. Her administration faced persistent accusations of election rigging in 2014, 2019, and 2024, along with widespread reports of human rights abuses and corruption, as documented by various international agencies. Later, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) released a report on August 16, highlighting grave human rights violations during the 2024 protests in Bangladesh. Security forces were reported to have used excessive and unnecessary force, including live ammunition and helicopter assaults, resulting in over 600 deaths, including 32 children. Thousands were arrested without due process, with numerous reports of torture in custody, particularly among student leaders, some of whom were forcibly disappeared and subjected to severe mistreatment. The government also imposed internet shutdowns, restricting freedom of expression and access to information, and enforced a nationwide curfew that disrupted daily life and access to essential services. These actions led to widespread calls for independent investigations to ensure accountability and prevent future violations.

It is worth recalling that, over the years, many believed Hasina’s government primarily served the interests of the wealthy elite, leaving the broader population to endure persistent economic hardships. This growing perception of inequality and neglect played a significant role in fuelling the widespread discontent that sparked the protests, ultimately leading to her resignation. 

Rise of the Interim Government

In the aftermath of Hasina’s resignation, an interim government took charge, led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus. A globally respected figure renowned for his pioneering work in microfinance, Yunus has been credited with helping millions escape poverty, earning accolades from international financial agencies such as the World Bank, IMF, and UNDP. These agencies recognized that the microfinance strategy, championed by Yunus, could be an ideal complement—or even a natural ally—to neoliberal reforms, as seen in many other countries. 

Yunus’s leadership in this transitional government represents a break from the political status quo. The inclusion of student leaders, as well as former financial experts, lawyers, human rights activists, former military officials and diplomats in governance, marks a significant departure from the past.  

One of the most striking developments in the current political situation is the rise of student leaders within the governance structure. These young leaders, who played a critical role in the protests, symbolize a significant shift in Bangladesh’s political development. Their involvement in governance marks a new beginning in the country’s history, yet it also brings in a set of challenges. The question of whether these leaders possess the capability and readiness to address the complex issues facing Bangladesh looms large. Their relative inexperience in the political arena could present significant risks, particularly in the delicate situation the country now finds itself in. Moreover, the political ideology of these student leaders remains somewhat ambiguous, adding another level of uncertainty. As the interim government works to stabilize the nation and lay the groundwork for future elections, it faces the formidable task of addressing these questions and guiding the country through this critical transition.

Role of the Military

The role of the military in Bangladesh during this crisis cannot be overlooked. Historically, the military has been a decisive force in Bangladesh’s politics, especially during periods of instability. It has intervened through coups or by exerting influence behind the scenes, often justifying its actions as necessary to restore order. This recurring involvement has created ongoing tension between democratic governance and authoritarian control, particularly in times of political crisis.

After Hasina left the country, Bangladesh Army Chief, General Waker-Uz-Zaman, announced the formation of an interim government, promising early elections and a return to civilian rule. This move signalled the military’s intent to act as a stabilizing force. However, in Bangladesh, the military’s influence has historically been more sporadic and less pervasive compared to Pakistan. The military’s involvement in the interim government, with advisors like Army General Sakhawat Hossain and Lt. Gen. (Retd) Md. Jahangir Alam Chowdhury, indicates that it will continue to play a significant role. However, it remains to be seen whether this will lead to a more permanent military presence in governance or if civilian rule will reassert itself after the promised elections.

Future Political Scenario

As we look to the future, the big question is what comes next for Bangladesh. The political system is at a critical juncture. The young leaders who emerged from the protests face the major task of addressing issues in this transitional phase. Whether they can break the long-standing bipolar dispensation that has characterized Bangladeshi politics for decades remains to be seen. 

For nearly 30 years, the country has been dominated by either Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League (AL) or Khaleda Zia’s Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). The political landscape in Bangladesh is characterized by both potentials and significant limitations regarding the role and influence of these parties.  The AL and BNP have historical legitimacy and social roots, particularly among specific demographics. For example, the AL is often associated with the liberation movement, giving it a strong emotional and historical connection with a large portion of the population. The BNP, on the other hand, has significant support among nationalist and more conservative elements of society. It has a regional dimension also, with AL taking a pro-India position and BNP maintaining an anti-India posture. 

However, the intense rivalry between the AL and BNP led to deep political polarization, often resulting in deadlock, political violence, and instability. People were frustrated with the policies and postures of the major political parties, especially in terms of economic management, corruption, and governance. This frustration often emerged from the perception that political leaders prioritize personal or party interests over national development and welfare. These parties often lack internal democracy, with leadership typically concentrated in the hands of a few individuals or families. This concentration of power limited the emergence of new leadership and ideas, leading to stagnation and the perpetuation of the status quo. Thus, there is a growing disconnect between the party leadership and the grassroots, worsened by economic disparities, urban-rural divides, and the increasing centralization of power within party structures.

The rise of alternative political forces, including religious parties and movements, signals a probable shift in Bangladesh’s political environment. These groups often ally with sections of the population that feel alienated or disillusioned by mainstream parties, challenging their dominance and introducing new dynamics into the political arena. The role of Bangladesh JeI is particularly noteworthy in this context. Amid widespread reports of violence against minorities, including Hindus and Christians, JeI was frequently accused of instigating these attacks. This occurred following the release of many JeI followers and other Islamists from detention. Interestingly, on August 19, Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami’s Ameer, Shafiqur Rahman, made a statement emphasizing equality: “All citizens of this country will enjoy equal rights, and people of all religions will raise their voices and say that here we are neither majority nor minority, we are all equal. I want the majority and minority issues to be dropped forever.” This statement appears to be a response to widespread criticism and growing concerns about communal violence.

It’s important to note that JeI’s ultimate goal is to establish an Islamic State, and it remains to be seen whether the party will seek new alliances with emerging political forces for electoral gain. Traditionally, JeI has been a political partner of the BNP, and their future collaboration will be a critical factor in shaping the country’s political trajectory. This is quite important in the context of BNP’s strategy to cash in on the political situation with the fall of Hasina regime. 

Amid the country’s transition, questions have also arisen about whether the interim government will pursue constitutional changes or reforms. The Constitution of Bangladesh, adopted in 1972, embodies the ideals of secularism, democracy, socialism, and nationalism. Originally designed as a secular framework to ensure equal rights for all citizens, its later amendment in 1988 to declare Islam as the state religion created a paradox, challenging the secular foundation of the state. This duality highlights both the Constitution’s potential and its limitations. While it has the capacity to unify a diverse population under principles of religious freedom and democratic governance, the contradiction of endorsing a state religion while claiming a secular identity poses challenges to equality and non-discrimination. The Constitution reflects Bangladesh’s complex identity, capable of adapting to social and political changes but also vulnerable to shifts that could undermine its founding ideals.

Chief Adviser to the interim government Yunus stated that students were calling for meaningful and profound reforms to transform Bangladesh into a “real and thriving democracy.” He reaffirmed the government’s commitment to holding “a free, fair, and participatory election” once they have fulfilled their mandate to implement essential reforms in the election commission, judiciary, civil administration, security forces, and media. Yunus also emphasized the importance of promoting national reconciliation. Thus, the coming months will be critical in determining whether Bangladesh can successfully address these challenges, avoid further instability, and advance toward a more democratic and stable governance structure.