Ahmed Swapan Mahmood
We believe the Chief Adviser will not step down in a time of crisis. Rather, the concern and frustration he has expressed are both timely and justified. The people of this country have long awaited such a firm stance. In this moment of political uncertainty, socioeconomic pressure, and growing public mistrust, the role of the Interim government must remain transparent, neutral, and limited in scope. Its only mandate is to conduct a free, fair, and inclusive national election and transfer power to an elected government. That is its principal and only responsibility.
Yet, we are seeing a disturbing trend: some advisers have claimed that their role is not merely to conduct election but to lead a broader national reform agenda and justice. Such assertions are misleading and self-deceptive. This narrative may appear to the politicians to be a veiled tactic to delay the election, and the public has every reason to interpret it as such. Political parties have already labeled such statements as pretexts for procrastination, and the people no longer place their faith in these misinterpretations.
Even more troubling are the claims made by some advisers that “the people want this government to stay in power for five years.” These statements have flooded social media and are being echoed by certain factions. Such irresponsible and misleading remarks are deeply concerning. The public has made no such demand. What they seek is election, voting rights, political stability, and a responsible government. Is the lure of power so sweet that one refuses to let it go? The people have spoken clearly: a fair election must be held by December. That is the crux of their expectation.
The promises of justice and reform that were once projected have now largely collapsed. There has been little progress in holding July criminals accountable, addressing financial corruption, or prosecuting those involved in mass murder. Announcements of new commissions, tribunals, and investigative bodies have yielded no meaningful outcomes. Instead, the public sees a government’s representatives, particularly youth advisers from the students entangled in internal conflicts, turf wars, and a politics of blame.
Political polarization is intensifying. The newly formed NCP’s desire to flex its power, its increasing influence within and beyond the government, derogatory remarks against women, provocative slogans at political rallies, and even seditious statements such as referring to Shahbagh as “Ghulam Azam’s Bangladesh” have sparked widespread public outrage.
Meanwhile, law and order has not significantly improved, prices of essential goods remain high, and corruption allegations are spreading from student leaders to advisers. Mob violence, majaar vandalism, violence against women etc are widespread and go beyond government’s control. The NCP is engaged in both rivalry with the BNP and alignment with Jamaat, is at odds with the gathering around Jamuna, distrusts the Election Commission, and is mired in internal disputes—altogether creating a state of disarray.
Rumors of rifts between the military and the Chief Adviser, along with visible cracks within the NCP, demonstrate that this new political force has lost the popular support it once enjoyed. The public now views it with distrust—a serious and ominous development.
At this critical juncture, the government and its advisers must focus solely on a few urgent priorities: initiating practical reforms in key areas, ensuring justice in select high-priority cases, and preparing for a credible national election followed by a peaceful transfer of power. Completing this process within a clear and fixed timeline is imperative.
Delays under the guise of tribunals, commissions, or so-called national consensus must cease. The people demand real and effective action. Their expectation is simple: a free, participatory, and credible election. In the last three national elections, citizens were largely denied their voting rights. If the upcoming election is genuinely fair and neutral, it will be the country’s greatest democratic reform. Re-establishing the right to vote is the foundation of any democratic state.
It is not unrealistic to expect cooperation from the BNP and other political parties. They too recognize that this election is an opportunity to regain public trust. A transparent election can help restore confidence in democratic politics.
The July uprising marked a decisive political turning point. It sent a powerful message of national unity and popular awakening. That spirit must be preserved. The era of divisive politics is over. The people will not wait any longer. If this government fails to deliver a fair election, public backlash will be swift and inevitable.
To the Chief Adviser, we make this appeal: remain with the people during this critical moment. Be the nation’s final refuge. History will remember you not as one who clung to power, but as one who, driven by duty, led the nation toward a disciplined and democratic future.
[The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Bangladesh Now. The publication bears no responsibility for the accuracy of any statements made or for any potential consequences arising from the content.]
The writer is a poet, human rights activist, and political analyst.
Sir, I read your article with great attention and found it to be a succinct yet insightful treatment of several critical issues. As you’re aware, I, too, have a longstanding interest in political affairs. Interestingly, many of the predictions I outlined in a series of four or five articles last July and August are now beginning to materialize. That said, allow me to return to a more focused discussion on the themes presented in your piece.
In 1971, the people of East Pakistan took up arms not merely to resist systemic exploitation and political marginalisation but to assert their inalienable right to self-determination—a foundational principle of democratic governance. As Jean-Jacques Rousseau stated in The Social Contract, “The people, being subject to the laws, ought to be their author.” This philosophical underpinning is what drove the liberation struggle: the collective desire to appoint our own rulers and reject imposed sovereignty.
While it is easy to portray the pre-1971 era solely through the lens of deprivation, a critical evaluation suggests that the grievances, although substantial, were compounded by a lack of political agency. The narrative of economic disparity, regional discrimination, and cultural suppression remains largely constructed from within our own historiography and, therefore, merits periodic scholarly reassessment. Nevertheless, the core issue remains unchanged: human beings fundamentally seek autonomy, dignity, and participatory governance.
Despite its developmental rhetoric, even the most well-intentioned authoritarian regimes tend to collapse under the weight of public demand for accountability and political pluralism. The fall of the Soviet Union and other centralised regimes illustrates how state-led paternalism, in the absence of democratic legitimacy, inevitably erodes state capacity and public trust.
In contemporary Bangladesh, the erosion of voting rights, widespread clientelism, systemic corruption, and coercive politics have contributed to growing public alienation. One of the primary causes of public dissatisfaction with Sheikh Hasina’s administration was not merely material grievances, but the absence of electoral credibility—a foundational element of any democratic regime. As Aristotle posited, “The basis of a democratic state is liberty,” and liberty cannot be sustained without free and fair elections.
While the interim government’s administrative role is confined by constitutional constraints, it must remember that its core mandate is electoral: to ensure the facilitation of a credible, participatory, and timely general election. Any deviation from this focus, particularly under the pretext of structural reform or transitional justice, risks being interpreted as a ploy for power consolidation and elite continuity. The suggestion by some advisers that their mandate should extend beyond elections into long-term reform and governance has little legal standing and only fuels public scepticism.
It is important to note that institutional reform—however essential—requires legislative legitimacy. Under the current legal framework, reforms initiated through ordinances must be validated by a duly elected parliament. Hence, the ideal course of action would be the formulation of a Charter of Political Consensus—a document agreed upon by all major political stakeholders, committing them to implement core reforms if elected, while deferring contentious items for future parliamentary debate. This would ensure both procedural legitimacy and strategic continuity.
The current socio-political environment in Bangladesh is marked by a volatile combination of political polarisation, weakened public institutions, and rising authoritarian tendencies among emerging political actors. Provocative statements, communal slogans, and turf wars not only exacerbate political instability but also tarnish the democratic culture that was hard-earned through years of struggle.
Therefore, the interim government’s immediate priority must be twofold: (1) to restore full control over law and order, and (2) to facilitate a general election within a constitutionally appropriate timeframe (ideally within 4–6 months). If electoral legitimacy is not restored, the state runs the risk of normative breakdown, civil unrest, and long-term delegitimisation of democratic institutions.
Niccolò Machiavelli once remarked, “The promise given was a necessity of the past; the word broken is a necessity of the present.” However, Bangladesh cannot afford such cynicism in this fragile moment. The integrity of our democratic process must be upheld, not only for the sake of political continuity but for the restoration of public confidence in governance itself.
Finally, it is heartening to observe the professional restraint of our armed forces during this volatile period. Their constitutional fidelity has thus far provided a stabilising effect, and it is imperative that all actors show similar restraint and commitment to democratic transition. As political scientists often argue, legitimacy flows not from coercion, but from consent.
Let this election be that moment of consent.