Special Correspondent:
Several months after the national election, Bangladesh’s most pressing priorities were expected to be political stability, economic recovery, good governance, and the implementation of institutional reforms. However, recent political developments suggest that the country is once again drifting toward confrontational politics.
Statements from opposition parties, competing claims over the legacy of the July Movement, and increasingly hostile exchanges among political actors indicate that political discourse is becoming more focused on narratives and rivalry than on policy-based competition.
The opposition has questioned the government’s moral legitimacy, alleged politicization of state institutions, and criticized its performance in meeting public expectations. In a parliamentary democracy, such scrutiny is both legitimate and necessary to ensure government accountability. Nevertheless, democracy cannot rely solely on criticism. Political disagreements should be addressed through the Constitution, Parliament, and other democratic institutions.
Bangladesh’s political history demonstrates that prolonged street-based agitation has often resulted in economic losses, institutional paralysis, and deeper social polarization rather than strengthening democratic governance. The recent election has created a new political reality, with voters signaling a preference for competitive parliamentary politics over prolonged confrontation. While political parties may disagree over the election outcome, they are expected to conduct their activities within the constitutional framework and prepare for future electoral contests.
A growing concern is that several opposition parties appear more focused on competing over the ownership of the July Movement’s legacy than on addressing pressing national issues such as inflation, employment, education, investment, and governance. At the same time, the lack of coordination among opposition forces raises questions about their collective commitment to democratic reform. Political groups advocating democratic values are also expected to demonstrate mutual trust and cooperation.
The tendency to interpret nearly every political development as part of a conspiracy has further reinforced mistrust within the political culture, contributing to polarization rather than strengthening democratic institutions.
Recent controversies involving several political parties have also exposed inconsistencies between their declared ethical commitments and actual conduct. Allegations of misconduct, reported attacks on journalists, disciplinary actions against local leaders, and disputes involving elected representatives underscore that no political party is beyond the need for accountability. While investigations and disciplinary measures are positive steps, these incidents serve as warnings for all political organizations.
The recent violence at Rajshahi University similarly highlighted the risks of prioritizing political power struggles over students’ interests. The incident reflects a broader concern that when demonstrations of political strength replace dialogue, the democratic and ethical foundations of student politics become weaker.
Bangladesh’s history of student politics has repeatedly shown that organizations established with promises of reform often become deeply entangled in national political polarization over time.
Historical issues also continue to shape contemporary politics. The role of Jamaat-e-Islami during the 1971 Liberation War remains one of Bangladesh’s most debated political issues. Various academic studies, judicial proceedings, and official records have documented allegations that sections of the party’s leadership and its then student wing collaborated with the Pakistani military during the war. Jamaat-e-Islami, however, has consistently challenged aspects of those historical accounts. As a result, both history and present-day political conduct continue to influence public assessments of the party.
At the same time, political parties should not be judged solely by their past, nor should history be ignored. Their present commitment to constitutional democracy, rejection of violence, respect for dissent, and adherence to accountability should remain the primary standards of political legitimacy. By those measures, no major political force in Bangladesh can afford complacency.
For most citizens, the primary concerns today are not political rhetoric but rising living costs, employment opportunities, quality education, investment, and efficient public services. Political parties should therefore prioritize these issues, as continued political confrontation inevitably slows development and reform efforts.
Bangladesh stands at an important political crossroads. The transition from street-centered confrontation to competitive parliamentary democracy requires responsible leadership from both the government and the opposition. The government must ensure inclusive governance, while opposition parties should pursue policy-based alternatives and conduct political competition within the constitutional framework.
Ultimately, democratic legitimacy is not determined by the size of rallies or the intensity of political slogans. It rests on responsible leadership, constitutional continuity, accountability, and public confidence. For the sake of Bangladesh’s long-term political stability, strengthening institutional and constitutional politics—not confrontation—should be the shared responsibility of both the government and the opposition.
