The lists of dengue infections and deaths are only getting longer, and nobody can tell if, or when, the situation will get better. The prices of daily essentials continue to skyrocket, with the price of eggs, the go-to protein for the poor, now equal to that of a kilogram of broiler chicken. Meanwhile, more than 50 people were killed in the floods in Chattogram and the Chittagong Hill Tracts area in recent weeks.

In all of this, it is the common people (or in the context of the upcoming national election, the voters) who are the worst sufferers. But the politicians seem to be blissfully oblivious to the plight of their electorate. There is no denying that the country is headed towards its next parliamentary election with the two major political parties harbouring opposite stances regarding the election itself. Of course, a free, fair, and inclusive election is necessary for a better society and stronger democracy. But when people are suffering the most, when they are dying because of poor governance, how can the political parties focus on only the physical exercise of the election and how it will play out in about four months? Shouldn't their focus be on how best to serve the people now? Shouldn't they be concerned about the welfare of the poorest of society? Shouldn't our politicians be working to win the hearts and minds of the people, instead of engaging in political power play with their archrivals?

Read more

Living like the poor, paying like the rich

Ideally, and historically, people get into politics for the welfare of their people. But it appears from recent political machinations that the people have been conveniently forgotten or even sidelined in the game of politics. When one political party says that the country's people are with it, and the other party claims that it represents the people, I can't help but wonder who it is that is actually representing me, or has my interests at heart.

Bangladeshi politics is going through a critical phase. The fact is that politicians have lost control over politics in general, which appears to have been hijacked by corporate interests – given the representation of businessmen and former bureaucrats in the parliament. Currently, around 62 percent of lawmakers are from the business sector. The government's dependency on the administration has increased. And none but the politicians have brought this upon themselves, in their pursuit of shortcuts and expediency. When career politicians become weak, so does politics. And when the people are sidelined, politics – so far as it is concerned with maintaining democracy – becomes more fragile.

Read more

Is the Awami League worried?

It is in this context that the exhortations of the diplomatic corps in Dhaka – India, China, the US, and the EU – about the supremacy of the people and how they hope that the people's wishes will be reflected in the outcome of the election, are both ironic and intriguing.

The two previous elections changed the nature of Bangladeshi people's participation in national politics. The 2014 election, which BNP had boycotted and which saw 153 lawmakers being elected uncontested, remains a rare example of a lopsided election. In the 2018 election, many people were denied the right to cast their votes, and allegations emerged of ballot-stuffing on the eve of elections, so much so that it was even mentioned by Awami League's alliance members. When politicians found that they could get elected even without votes, voters ceased to become a factor to consider when trying to win elections. In the past, candidates did have to woo voters, and win their hearts and minds to get their votes. But now, when a mere nomination all but guarantees victory for a candidate, the exercise of putting in effort to win voters has become all but cosmetic.

Read more

Did BNP make the wrong call?

On the other hand, while the opposition can do little so far as actual measures are concerned – whether that relates to dengue or prices – it is their responsibility to hold the government accountable. It falls on the opposition to keep these issues alive so that the government cannot ignore them. One way to do that is in parliament, which has unfortunately lost its purpose since the official opposition is, by and large, an informal extension of the ruling party alliance. Meanwhile, the main opposition camp on the streets, BNP, is too obsessed with its one-point demand for a resignation of the ruling government than with the plight of the voters.

So now, whenever I hear calls for this or that "in the name of the people," and when political parties launch campaigns for the supposed sake of the people, it seems to me that those politicians are merely cementing their political careers using the name of the people. Is anyone actually thinking about the families of those 50 people who died in the floods? Or about the children who are going to bed hungry in Bangladesh even now? That one has to pose such questions in a column is perhaps an even bigger tragedy.

Mohammad Al-Masum Molla is chief reporter at The Daily Star.

BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia boarded a flight to the UK for medical treatment a few hours after her scheduled departure. The delay was caused by the thousands who thronged the highway to bid her farewell. The ensuing traffic jam inconvenienced commuters, no doubt, but it was an outpouring of love and support from her admirers and followers. On the same day, the Bangladesh government revoked 97 passports, including that of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who is now exiled in India, having fled after a massive political upsurge.

Just six months ago, the tables were completely turned. Khaleda was under house arrest, while her party was desperately appealing for her to be allowed to travel for medical care. The request was denied many times. Meanwhile, Sheikh Hasina held an iron grip on power, with no one daring to challenge her.

Since Hasina's government came to power, Khaleda had endured relentless verbal attacks but remained largely silent, maintaining a quiet dignity even as Hasina's words often struck with sharp venom. The two women, both giants of Bangladesh's political landscape, share a bitter rivalry, yet their communication styles couldn't be more different—Hasina is known for her fiery, often harsh tone, while Khaleda is known for remaining calm and calculated, rarely engaging in public verbal sparring.

Khaleda Zia's troubles began in 2009 when her archrival Hasina assumed office. The first blow came when Khaleda was forcibly evicted from her Dhaka cantonment house, which she had called home for decades. In a tearful press conference at her Gulshan office, Khaleda accused the government of dragging her out of her bedroom, breaking down her door, and leaving her with nothing but the clothes she was wearing. Awami League leaders, including Hasina herself, dismissed her emotional plea as nothing more than "crocodile tears."

Read more

Bangladesh’s strategic crossroads in 2025 and beyond

The political climate grew more hostile. On December 29, 2013, as the BNP declared its "March for Democracy" ahead of the controversial January 5, 2014, elections, Khaleda's path was blocked by five sand-laden trucks ordered by the government to prevent her from attending the rally. The sight of the trucks—now infamous in Bangladesh's political history as "sand-truck democracy"—left Khaleda frustrated and powerless. It was the first time she was out of parliament since she began parliamentary politics in 1990. While she was visibly upset, her fury was directed not at Hasina but at the female police officers who had managed to irritate her. In a brief moment of exasperation, Khaleda lashed out in a rare outburst. The only other time Khaleda appeared ungracious was when Hasina wanted to offer condolences for the death of Arafat, Khaleda's younger son. The sitting prime minister was turned back from the locked gates of Khaleda's Gulshan house.

Khaleda's journey took an even darker turn when she was imprisoned on corruption charges filed during the army-backed caretaker government. Meanwhile, Hasina, when she came to power, had all charges against her cleared, even as Khaleda languished in Dhaka Central Jail. Hasina, ever vocal, repeatedly mocked Khaleda, calling her a "thief" and claiming she deserved the punishment she received. Hasina would often declare, while mocking the BNP's political efforts: "Now they're marching for a thief."

Ironically, however, the international media has reported massive corruption allegations against Hasina's cabinet and even her niece, who is a British MP.

Hasina even issued threats that any attempt by the BNP to step up its movement would result in Khaleda being thrown back into prison, deepening the political animosity between the two women and fuelling a bitter feud that shaped Bangladesh's political landscape. Even after sending her to jail, Hasina did not refrain from making harsh comments. Earlier in 2022, she even remarked that Khaleda Zia should be "thrown" off the Padma Bridge. At a programme in London in October 2023, Hasina further said, "Khaleda Zia is over 80 years old, and there is news every day that she is on the verge of dying." She then questioned the point of crying over her health.

Read more

The quest is for an opposition, not a government

Hasina's ungracious comments weren't limited to Khaleda. She also targeted other prominent figures, including Muhammad Yunus, who is currently the chief adviser to the interim government. She infamously labelled Yunus a "bloodsucker of the poor." Moreover, during the student protests in late July, Hasina's reaction was far from empathetic. Instead of listening to the youth's grievances, she blamed the students and ordered the police to crack down hard on the protesters.

Ultimately, Hasina was forced to flee the country. Despite her repeated declarations that she would never leave, she fled Bangladesh in the face of mass public anger, abandoning millions of her party loyalists who were left in disarray.

On the other hand, Khaleda Zia departed the country amid a spontaneous farewell fit for a respected leader after years of hardship. Despite that, Khaleda chose not to lash out against Hasina. Instead, she called for "no destruction, no anger, and no revenge," urging the need for love and peace to rebuild the nation.

In a world where silence hardly prevails, Khaleda Zia's restraint became her strength. When the autocratic regime sought to break her, it was the people who showered her with love. This quiet yet powerful defiance set her apart from others.

Where others saw defeat, Khaleda saw an opportunity. As Hasina fled in the face of overwhelming public dissent, Khaleda was met with the kind of love and support that transcended years of political conflict. In choosing peace over revenge and dialogue over destruction, she set an example that speaks louder than words.

Of all the five major political figures in Bangladesh's history—Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Ziaur Rahman, HM Ershad, Khaleda Zia, and Sheikh Hasina—it is only Khaleda Zia who has managed to avoid the label of an autocrat. This distinction is a significant defining aspect of her political legacy.

At a time when politics often rewards the loudest voice, Khaleda Zia's legacy serves as a reminder that silence, too, can be golden. It is this quiet strength that will echo through Bangladesh's history, ensuring that she is not just remembered but also revered.

Mohammad Al-Masum Molla is a journalist of The Daily Star.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.

The January election has been the centre of attention for well over a year now. Everyone was curious how this edition would eventually pan out, especially whether BNP would finally be able to pressure the government into forming a nonpartisan election-time government, which is difficult, if not impossible. Some were just excited about the possibility of voting and it actually counting, unlike the last two elections. However, with BNP's boycott confirmed and seats distributed among Awami League's alliance, the results are almost a foregone conclusion.

Brig Gen (retd) M Sakhawat Hussain, former election commissioner, said this election is essentially a quest for an opposition party (read opposition in parliament). Although 27 parties are contesting in the polls, the search for a viable opposition remains the most prominent feature. The situation is so obvious that even someone without much political insight can predict that the ruling AL will form the next government with an absolute majority.

Read more

Youth depression is a symptom of broader societal malaise

So, when the results are a foregone conclusion and winners are already known, the election has little significance. The results are predictable as the elections will be held under a range of restrictions.

The restrictions are an important issue here. The Election Commission asked the government to take measures so that no political programmes, other than for electioneering, can be held after December 18. In a letter sent to the home ministry, the EC said parties should be stopped from holding rallies and other public events that may "obstruct the election process and discourage people from casting their votes." The measures should be in place till after the election on January 7, said the letter, addressed to the senior secretary of the Public Security Division.

It is the EC's role to ensure a congenial atmosphere for people to cast their votes freely. But the way the commission is stopping the activities of political parties is merely a bid to hide its failure through other means. This type of action had not been taken by any EC, not even by the 2014 Rakib commission. But this is not unexpected, as the commission itself announced the election schedule amid high security and beefed up police protection, with the deployment of armoured personnel carriers and water cannons.

Basically, this level of security at the EC betrays the election's true nature and how congenial the prevailing atmosphere is. True, BNP and other opposition parties are enforcing hartals and blockades, demanding a nonpartisan interim government. But the political opposition is fully within its rights to demand and campaign to oust the government. Obviously, opposition parties will not support the government when elections come around.

But for the EC to also act as an extension of the political government and bar political programmes that might "discourage people from voting" betrays its inherently nonpartisan design. Holding rallies is a fundamental right not just of a political party but also of individuals, a right that should not be tainted with equivocations or conditions, or intermitted because of "special circumstances." 

Not even the home ministry can lawfully abide by the commission's request. Just like casting votes is a right, so is not casting it. And so is waging a peaceful campaign to convince people not to vote at all. Since there is no "no vote" option, as there was in 2008, citizens may not feel compelled to vote. Thus, any campaign to discourage people from voting is as lawful as the urging people to vote for a certain candidate.

To complicate this further, in a television interview, ruling party leader and agriculture minister Abdur Razzaque said BNP received a number of generous offers. The party was even told that all its leaders would be released from jail overnight if it decides to join the January 7 election. 

Distancing the ruling party from Razzaque's comments, AL general secretary Obaidul Quader, the very next day, said the remarks were not of AL's but that of the minister's alone. On the same day, Razzaque said, "I think what I said, I did not say anything wrong, not a bit. The statement is correct." 

For a long time, BNP leaders have been accusing the government of politicising the legal system and imprisoning its activists and members illegally. Razzaque's statements only vindicate what BNP has been claiming all this time.

Read more

Turn candidates' halafnama into amalnama

As BNP is not contesting the polls, it will try to make the election controversial, demonstrating the loopholes and deficiencies. And towards that end, the opposition parties must give a big thanks to Razzaque and the Election Commission, as they are doing the opposition's work, making it easier to illustrate that the system is so tainted that an election under Awami League would never be fair. 

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina already said that BNP is plotting to create a famine in the country, after realising that it won't be able to thwart the upcoming election, and perhaps realising that tough times are coming a few months down the line. We are hopeful that under Hasina's iron-handed leadership, there will be no such famine in the country. But it appears there is another kind of crisis under her watch—a 10-year drought of proper elections, a drought that won't let up soon, it appears.

Mohammad Al-Masum Molla is chief reporter at The Daily Star.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.

The enormous sacrifices made during the July-August uprising have created a historic opportunity for Bangladesh to reshape its political landscape, strengthen institutions, and ensure accountable governance. However, as the months trickle by and the interim government faces various challenges, a critical question has emerged lately: should the desired reforms precede elections, or should an elected government take the reins of reform implementation? Recent statements by government officials and political leaders indicate a divide that must be bridged for the sake of the nation.

Read more

Politics, patience and people’s mandate

At a two-day event in Dhaka recently, several government advisers weighed in on the issue, emphasising the need for reforms as well as consensus. In his address, Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus affirmed that preparations for reforms and elections would proceed simultaneously, suggesting that reforms without consensus and elections without reforms would be counterproductive. Currently, 15 reform commissions are working on proposals expected to be ready by January. Adviser Mahfuj Alam, in his address, stated that consultation with all stakeholders, including political parties, would determine the nature and extent of reforms. "We need agreement on how much reform is possible and whether a legal framework can ensure that future governments continue these initiatives," he said. Meanwhile, Adviser Syeda Rizwana Hasan warned that political stability will not be achieved if we falter on the issue of reforms.

Read more

Election in first half of ’26 is not unreasonable, but Dec ’25 is doable

Meanwhile, BNP has insisted that elections and reforms should progress in tandem. Senior leaders, including Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir and Ruhul Kabir Rizvi, have expressed concerns that prioritising reforms over elections could stall the democratic process. Rizvi, speaking at a separate event, was particularly critical, claiming that proponents of a reform-first approach harbour "evil intentions" by suggesting that political parties' push for a democratic transition equates to opposing reforms. He underscored the urgency of restoring power to elected representatives, who could then implement reforms with a popular mandate.

Read more

How election can be a tool of accountability

We must say that both sides have points that are valid, and not necessarily contradictory. The government's emphasis on implementing some reforms before elections reflects the understanding that a broken system cannot deliver on people's aspirations. Without addressing systemic flaws—such as the politicisation of state institutions, the erosion of rule of law, economic disparities, etc—elections, no matter how well-conducted, risk perpetuating entrenched power structures. On the other hand, delaying elections excessively risks creating a perception of authoritarian drift as well as alienating those eager to exercise their voting rights.

Read more

The case for internal reforms within political parties

So, how can we bridge this gap? Through dialogue and compromise, of course. Both camps must find common ground in their positions, tempering their adversarial tones to prevent the ongoing reform drive from being questioned or derailed. That said, the sacrifices of July-August demand more than short-term fixes or a partial democratic transition. Proper reforms are crucial not just for safeguarding the gains of the uprising but also for ensuring that future governments operate within the desired framework of accountability.

Read more

A turning point or a missed opportunity?

We, therefore, urge political parties to engage in the reform process in good faith, ensuring that their push for elections aligns with the broader goal of strengthening democracy. At the same time, the interim government must address the scepticism about its reform agenda, demonstrating its commitment to meaningful and inclusive change. Only through a collaborative approach can the reform vs election debate be resolved.