Can Bangladesh break free from its cycle of political vendetta?

Bangladesh has long been plagued by political violence stemming from the dynastic rivalry between Sheikh Hasina, daughter of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, and Khaleda Zia, widow of Ziaur Rahman. Yet the present moment feels different. As the country moves toward elections scheduled for February next year, its political landscape is being reshaped under the caretaker administration of Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus — formed after mass student protests had brought down Hasina's increasingly autocratic government.

The Yunus-led interim set-up assumed power with an ambitious promise: to rebuild a state hollowed out by years of authoritarian rule. After three consecutive and increasingly repressive terms under Sheikh Hasina, nearly every major institution — from the judiciary and civil service to the police and election commission — had been politically co-opted. Reforming these institutions was essential to restoring democratic legitimacy.

Yunus, long celebrated as an advocate of integrity and good governance, appeared uniquely suited to the task. Declaring early on that he would not contest elections himself, he sought to project neutrality and credibility. Yet before meaningful institutional reform could begin, Yunus found himself under mounting pressure to hold elections swiftly. This urgency has inevitably diverted attention from the slower, more difficult work of rebuilding independent and accountable institutions.

The caretaker government's most consequential and controversial decision was to bar the Awami League from contesting the upcoming polls. There is little doubt that Sheikh Hasina and many Awami League stalwarts face credible allegations of grave human rights abuses, including persecution of opponents, enforced disappearances and manipulation of the judiciary. Excluding individuals accused of violence or repression from public office is defensible. But banning the entire party, which once led Bangladesh's independence movement, risks undermining the very democratic principles the caretaker government claims to defend.

International opinions on Hasina's legacy have shifted swiftly. Once regarded as a guarantor of stability, she is now increasingly seen as the architect of a deeply entrenched authoritarian order. Western governments and human rights organisations that overlooked her ongoing excesses are now openly condemning her record. They acknowledge that while her government delivered economic growth, it did so at the expense of democratic freedom and institutional autonomy.

Hasina, however, insists that her absence will pave the way for extremism. India, where she now lives in exile, shares this concern. Yet New Delhi's unease also stems from discomfort with the caretaker government's perceived tilt toward rapprochement with Pakistan and its broader regional recalibration.

The signs of what Bangladesh's new political order might look like are mixed. The Dhaka University student union elections, often viewed as a bellwether of national sentiment, were won by the Jamaat-e-Islami's student wing, a remarkable comeback after years of suppression under Hasina. Nationally, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Jamaat appear poised to perform strongly in the upcoming general elections, with smaller student and left-leaning groups likely to win a scattering of seats.

Whether the incumbents exercise restraint in power or they will fall back into the same cycles of retaliation, and exploitation of state institutions to settle old scores, remains a pressing issue.

Bangladesh's central challenge is to ensure that political change fosters renewal rather than retribution. A post-election government that pursues reconciliation and gradually reintegrates the Awami League under new leadership and clear legal boundaries could lay the groundwork for a genuinely inclusive political order — one capable of moving beyond the country's entrenched zero-sum politics.

In the months ahead, it will become clear whether Yunus's caretaker administration has done enough to guide the nation toward sustainable democratic reform. The real test is not merely whether elections occur on schedule, but whether they produce a political system that tolerates dissent, restrains executive power and restores institutional credibility.