While the student uprising in Bangladesh was ostensibly about the government’s job-quota system, the underlying problem was former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s growing authoritarianism. To restore democracy, the interim government must stabilize the economy and rebuild political institutions while remaining non-partisan.
NEW YORK – The downfall of Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina unfolded faster than almost anyone expected. In early July, students took to the streets to protest the job-quota system that reserved 30% of civil-service positions for veterans of the 1971 War of Independence and their descendants. Police were ordered to quell the unrest, and given permission to shoot if needed. By August 5, nearly 300 people had been killed, and Hasina, under serious pressure from the army, had resigned and fled the country.
The controversial job-quota system, which came under fire amid increasing economic hardship, rising youth unemployment, and soaring inflation, is widely viewed as the cause of the revolt. But this was merely the spark that lit the fuse. The deeper and more significant problem was Hasina’s growing authoritarianism, which upended Bangladesh’s political landscape and left little room for dissent.
I sensed this shift during my visit to Bangladesh last year. The people I spoke to, including many supporters of Hasina’s Awami League – the party that led the country’s independence movement under the leadership of her father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman – were critical of her increasing authoritarianism, intolerance of dissent, and intimidation of the media. They lamented, albeit sotto voce, the destruction of Bangladesh’s founding principles: democracy and secularism.
The tragedy is that it did not have to be this way. Hasina was a courageous, secular leader who steered Bangladesh away from religious fundamentalism, which can impede economic and social progress. At the same time, she oversaw the country’s remarkable growth story. In 2019, Bangladesh overtook India in per capita GDP, an outcome that would have seemed impossible even five or ten years earlier. To be sure, it was partly caused by India’s 2016 policy of demonetization, a failed attempt to curb “black money” and corruption that led to a steady deceleration in the economy’s growth rate over the next five years. But Bangladesh’s robust exports and development gains also played a vital role.
The power vacuum resulting from this unexpected revolt can jeopardize Bangladesh’s stability. History has repeatedly shown that countries often take unexpected turns after a rebellion, no matter how justified. Religious extremist groups will undoubtedly try to seize power. If that happens, it might spell the end of Bangladesh’s successful trajectory.
Still, there is cause for hope. Both the students who led the rebellion and the country’s military leaders have acted responsibly: instead of grabbing power for themselves, they established an interim government headed by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Muhammad Yunus. Bangladesh’s constitution does not offer clear guidance on how long such a government can rule. Some have called for swift elections, but I think that they should be delayed until at least next summer. The economy must be stabilized, and political institutions must be rebuilt before a national vote can be held.
Project Syndicate is returning to Climate Week NYC with an even more expansive program. Join us live on September 22 as we welcome speakers from around the world at our studio in Manhattan to address critical dimensions of the climate debate.
Register Now
Despite being one of the world’s economic success stories, Bangladesh has struggled in recent years. The country’s two biggest economic challenges – high youth unemployment and inflation rates – cannot be corrected in a matter of weeks. The central bank’s autonomy has clearly been eroded over the last few years and will need to be restored, and the government must make several fiscal corrections to boost employment.
On the political front, it will be important for the interim government to be – and to be perceived as – non-partisan. Some factions may try to ban the Awami League and its affiliated groups. This would be a mistake. Individual members who committed crimes should not be allowed to run for office. However, as a party, the Awami League has played a crucial role as a progressive force and as a bulwark against extremism. Many of its members opposed Hasina’s authoritarian turn in recent years but were too afraid of retribution to voice their concerns.
My last meeting with Hasina was at the World Bank on May 1, 2023, when then-President David Malpass invited her to celebrate 50 years of partnership between the Bank and Bangladesh. As I walked to the Bank’s main building in Washington, I had to navigate a throng of Bangladeshis who had gathered outside to protest against her. In the meeting, Hasina was surrounded by a small group of staff and advisers who nodded in agreement to whatever she said. Did they really see eye to eye with Hasina, or was it simply too costly to disagree?
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
With less than two months to go until the US presidential election, the candidates’ opposing worldviews, objectives, and priorities – and their implications for international relations, the economy, and democracy – have come into sharper focus. While it is impossible to know exactly what a leader will do once in office, the contours of both a Donald Trump and a Kamala Harris presidency are remarkably well defined.
Since the start of the Olympic Summer Games in Paris, Emmanuel Macron has reclaimed the initiative and confronted a political situation that is in many ways unprecedented for a French president. Not only has the center held, but the country may have a return to political stability in its sights.
reflects on the French president's efforts to maintain control after a painful election season.
NEW YORK – The downfall of Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina unfolded faster than almost anyone expected. In early July, students took to the streets to protest the job-quota system that reserved 30% of civil-service positions for veterans of the 1971 War of Independence and their descendants. Police were ordered to quell the unrest, and given permission to shoot if needed. By August 5, nearly 300 people had been killed, and Hasina, under serious pressure from the army, had resigned and fled the country.
The controversial job-quota system, which came under fire amid increasing economic hardship, rising youth unemployment, and soaring inflation, is widely viewed as the cause of the revolt. But this was merely the spark that lit the fuse. The deeper and more significant problem was Hasina’s growing authoritarianism, which upended Bangladesh’s political landscape and left little room for dissent.
I sensed this shift during my visit to Bangladesh last year. The people I spoke to, including many supporters of Hasina’s Awami League – the party that led the country’s independence movement under the leadership of her father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman – were critical of her increasing authoritarianism, intolerance of dissent, and intimidation of the media. They lamented, albeit sotto voce, the destruction of Bangladesh’s founding principles: democracy and secularism.
The tragedy is that it did not have to be this way. Hasina was a courageous, secular leader who steered Bangladesh away from religious fundamentalism, which can impede economic and social progress. At the same time, she oversaw the country’s remarkable growth story. In 2019, Bangladesh overtook India in per capita GDP, an outcome that would have seemed impossible even five or ten years earlier. To be sure, it was partly caused by India’s 2016 policy of demonetization, a failed attempt to curb “black money” and corruption that led to a steady deceleration in the economy’s growth rate over the next five years. But Bangladesh’s robust exports and development gains also played a vital role.
The power vacuum resulting from this unexpected revolt can jeopardize Bangladesh’s stability. History has repeatedly shown that countries often take unexpected turns after a rebellion, no matter how justified. Religious extremist groups will undoubtedly try to seize power. If that happens, it might spell the end of Bangladesh’s successful trajectory.
Still, there is cause for hope. Both the students who led the rebellion and the country’s military leaders have acted responsibly: instead of grabbing power for themselves, they established an interim government headed by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Muhammad Yunus. Bangladesh’s constitution does not offer clear guidance on how long such a government can rule. Some have called for swift elections, but I think that they should be delayed until at least next summer. The economy must be stabilized, and political institutions must be rebuilt before a national vote can be held.
PS Events: Climate Week NYC 2024
Project Syndicate is returning to Climate Week NYC with an even more expansive program. Join us live on September 22 as we welcome speakers from around the world at our studio in Manhattan to address critical dimensions of the climate debate.
Register Now
Despite being one of the world’s economic success stories, Bangladesh has struggled in recent years. The country’s two biggest economic challenges – high youth unemployment and inflation rates – cannot be corrected in a matter of weeks. The central bank’s autonomy has clearly been eroded over the last few years and will need to be restored, and the government must make several fiscal corrections to boost employment.
On the political front, it will be important for the interim government to be – and to be perceived as – non-partisan. Some factions may try to ban the Awami League and its affiliated groups. This would be a mistake. Individual members who committed crimes should not be allowed to run for office. However, as a party, the Awami League has played a crucial role as a progressive force and as a bulwark against extremism. Many of its members opposed Hasina’s authoritarian turn in recent years but were too afraid of retribution to voice their concerns.
My last meeting with Hasina was at the World Bank on May 1, 2023, when then-President David Malpass invited her to celebrate 50 years of partnership between the Bank and Bangladesh. As I walked to the Bank’s main building in Washington, I had to navigate a throng of Bangladeshis who had gathered outside to protest against her. In the meeting, Hasina was surrounded by a small group of staff and advisers who nodded in agreement to whatever she said. Did they really see eye to eye with Hasina, or was it simply too costly to disagree?