Bangladesh’s longest-serving prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, resigned and fled the country amid a powerful student movement. Initially elected democratically in January 2009, Hasina’s rule quickly transformed into an authoritarian regime characterized by manipulation, suppression, and human rights abuses. Her government conducted three elections in 2014, 2018, and 2024, each plagued by allegations of rigging and manipulation. The opposition was systematically marginalized, with dissenters facing extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, and judicial harassment, creating an atmosphere of fear.
The student movement that ultimately led to Hasina’s ousting began as a protest against the government’s attempt to revise the job quota system, which allocated 56 percent of government jobs through a quota. The government attempted to kick the matter to the courts, but students demanded policy changes. When the government dismissed the protesters’ demands and labeled them as “Razakars,” a derogatory term for collaborators during the 1971 War of Independence, the youth were outraged. Massive protests erupted, and despite the government’s forceful response, resulting in the deaths of over 1,000 students, the movement persisted. The judiciary eventually reformed the quota system, but the students’ demands had expanded to include a public apology from Hasina.
As the protests intensified, Hasina’s attempts to suppress them only fueled the movement further. The students eventually called for her resignation. Unable to control the situation, Hasina fled the country, creating a political vacuum. In the aftermath, the military intervened but refrained from seizing power, instead facilitating plans for an interim government. Nobel Laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus emerged as the students’ preferred choice to lead the interim government.
With this shift, Hasina’s Awami League (AL) has been ousted from mainstream politics as they were not invited by the interim government to discuss reformation agendas. It has also become a leaderless political party, as AL leaders either fled the country or were arrested. The AL, a political party with deep historical roots in Bangladesh, faces a potential shift toward becoming a radical political pariah.
A radical political pariah is a group that exists on the fringes of the political system, combining extreme ideology with strategic marginalization. It uses both symbolic and violent resistance to remain relevant, appealing to disenfranchised segments of the population while being ostracized by mainstream political actors and the international community. The following points outline why the AL might evolve in this direction.
The AL has a significant and loyal support base, primarily due to its role in the liberation of Bangladesh from Pakistan in 1971. The party’s leadership during the independence movement cemented its status as a national symbol of freedom and sovereignty. Over the years, this historical legacy has translated into enduring political influence, allowing the AL to remain in power for the last 15 years.
During this extended period, the party cultivated a vast network of beneficiaries – individuals and groups who have profited from their association with the AL. This beneficiary group, motivated by their economic and political ties to the party, is likely to remain fiercely loyal. Even in scenarios of escalating conflict or opposition, these supporters could drive the AL to adopt more extreme measures, potentially leading to a radical stance. This loyalty was evidenced in recent incidents where AL supporters attacked army vehicles in Gopalganj, showcasing their willingness to confront state forces in defense of the party.
Under the AL’s governance, members of Bangladesh’s security forces and AL members have been implicated in numerous human rights violations, including the BDR mutiny in 2009, the Shapla killings in 2013, and the July massacre in 2024, alongside extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and other forms of state-sponsored violence. As the political landscape shifts, there is a strong likelihood that these individuals will face accountability, given the growing demand for justice. Cornered by the prospect of trials, some of these individuals might choose to take up arms to protect themselves, potentially aligning with the AL to destabilize the state.
If the government moves to prosecute those responsible for these offenses, the AL’s public acceptability would likely plummet. Leaders and activists within the party could face lengthy prison sentences, further eroding their influence and credibility. The loss of trust in the party, exacerbated by Sheikh Hasina becoming the first prime minister of Bangladesh to flee the country amid a mass movement, could push the AL toward extremism to retain power and avoid legal consequences.
The Hasina regime has been marred by widespread allegations of corruption. Party leaders and their affiliates have allegedly amassed billions of dollars, both domestically and abroad. As Bangladesh grapples with ongoing economic challenges, there is a growing fear that the AL might exploit these crises to their advantage. With access to vast financial resources, the party could potentially fund efforts to topple the current government by force. The combination of economic power and political desperation could propel the AL toward a radical agenda, particularly if they believe their survival as a political entity is at stake.
India has been a steadfast ally of the AL, providing consistent support over the past 15 years. India has sheltered Hasina and Indian media portrayed the anti-Hasina movement as an attack on minority Hindus and the rise of Islamism, which Indian leaders consider a threat to their national security. In the event of a political crisis, if the current government shows anti-India sentiment, it is possible that the AL could secure arms and other forms of assistance from across the border. India’s involvement could embolden the AL to pursue a radical agenda, particularly if the AL believes they have external backing.
Additionally, geopolitical tensions in neighboring Myanmar could exacerbate the internal crisis in Bangladesh, creating a volatile environment that might further push the AL toward radicalism.
Thus, the Awami League’s potential transformation into a radical political pariah is rooted in its deep support base, ties with security forces implicated in human rights violations, extensive corruption, potential loss of public trust, and external alliances. As the political and economic pressures mount, the party might resort to extreme measures to maintain its influence, leading to a shift toward radicalism. The implications of such a shift could be profound, potentially destabilizing Bangladesh and the wider region.
Alternatively, the AL can adopt peaceful measures by introducing a new generation of untainted leaders to run the party. This approach might help prevent the party from transitioning into a radical organization.