If interim government doesn’t set an example in reform, it won't happen again

Dr. Muhammad Yunus, the Chief Adviser of the caretaker government, has placed excessive emphasis on reform. He clearly stated, “Not flimsy reform, not superficial reform, but fundamental reform. We will do it in such a way that no one will be able to undo it.” He also remarked, “My only concern is reform. Debate all you want about what the reforms will be, but let’s not hold an election without reform… Don't miss this opportunity.” His words are commendable; however, they are not grounded in the realities of the situation. He dreams, but in trying to realize those dreams, he faces disillusionment. His claim that he will make reform irreversible is rooted more in emotion than in practical reality.

In a country where people lie under oath on holy books, contractual reforms by political parties or leaders will be devoured by vultures from the garbage bin. Political leaders here boldly make promises in public one day and outright deny them the next when faced with criticism. People lie unnecessarily in this country. Bangladeshi politicians present two faces—one when in power, another when out of power. When asked about the presence of 2.6 million Indians in Bangladesh, the legal adviser replied that he wasn’t in power when he made that statement. So it would not be wise for Dr. Yunus to take political promises literally or base his decisions on them.

The public may have forgotten the outline of the alliance of three fronts that protested H.M. Ershad’s election fraud, but if the chief adviser of the caretaker government forgets it, it will only create a mirage. The outline rich with promises of fair and impartial elections was strangled to death when the BNP came to power. In a 1994 Magura by-election during the BNP regime, the rigging was so severe that the Chief Election Commissioner, Justice Mohammad Abdur Rouf, had to flee in shame. When a public movement began for a caretaker government based on Jamaat-e-Islami’s formula, Prime Minister Khaleda Zia declared, “Only children and lunatics are impartial.” Her words seem validated when one sees the partisanship of professionals and intellectuals in this country. Doctors, journalists, lawyers, and university teachers all demonstrate blatant loyalty to the ruling party. Therefore, any desire by Dr. Yunus to build a charter of people’s uprising based on the Reform Commission’s report is doomed from the start. Hear what Mirza Abbas of the BNP has to say about Yunus’ proposed charter: “We will not easily accept any reform done by their hands or their pens. If they reform, we will correct it.”

Dr. Yunus’ helplessness in implementing the Commission’s recommendations is disheartening, especially since all sides involved in the uprising are united only on one issue—punishment for Sheikh Hasina and the destruction of the Awami League—not on reform. The resistance to reform isn't just ideological; it also manifests in mob violence, which has emerged as a cancer against reform. If Islamic parties come to power, the structure of the state and government will be fundamentally altered, leaving no room for Yunus’ vision of reform. Even if the BNP returns to power, they will lack any real drive for reform. Ruling parties never want to establish good governance through reform, as that would grant the opposition space to speak. Instead, they choose repression, which eventually leads to losing power. When they do lose it, revenge begins under the shelter of the administration. Knowing this, no ruling party dares to allow a fair election. Their intent to make power permanent is what destroyed the caretaker government system and rendered parliament ineffective.

Reform means establishing good governance. Where good governance exists, unlawful persecution of the opposition is not possible; corruption, bribery, and terrorism decline. Why would a ruling party want to lose its dominance by allowing such reforms?

Every political party in Bangladesh talks about democracy—even the Islamist ones—but none are truly committed to it. Without genuine commitment, no party practices internal democratic norms. It’s strange that people expect democracy from parties that don’t have it internally. The democracy practiced in Bangladesh is indistinguishable from authoritarianism. Once in power, all parties operate under autocratic methods. Parliament becomes a center for sycophancy. MPs use half their allotted two minutes praising the leader rather than addressing the problems of their constituencies. This leads to public frustration. At its peak, frustration triggers uprisings, toppling so-called democratic autocrats. Such was the fall of H.M. Ershad and Sheikh Hasina. Without internal democracy, party leadership doesn’t depend on votes, education, or organizational skills—only the blessing of the supreme leader. These leaders earn titles like “Deshnetri,” “Jononetri,” or “Pallibandhu.” No reform can erase this mindset.

No reform in the world can eliminate flattery and idolization from Bangladesh. This culture is so deeply ingrained that even the corrupt police chief Benazir Ahmed is treated like a moral authority. And Benazir is not alone—many similarly corrupt, money-hungry figures exist among our so-called intellectuals. During the uprising against Sheikh Hasina, questions were raised about bribery, corruption, blind party loyalty, and the abuse of police, judiciary, civil service, media, and political leaders. These questions created an opportunity for accountability. But no steps were taken to channel this questioning into structured reform. Instead, it dissolved into uncontrolled mob violence. Who will lead reform in such an environment?

Barrister Rumeen Farhana’s father, Oli Ahad, wrote in his book "National Politics from 1945 to 1975" that during a protest in the Pakistan era, he told a police officer beating him, “When I come to power, I’ll deal with you.” The officer replied, “Sir, then we’ll beat your opposition under your orders.” Who will reform this subservient culture of the police? No one. Even the caretaker government is complicit. The Home Affairs Adviser recently scolded police at a station, effectively telling them to act on his word, not the law. Who removes the trash from their own side? Arresting ruling party criminals requires three layers of thought in the police. Has this changed under the interim government? If the caretaker government doesn’t set a precedent now, how will people judge the next government?

Given the widespread growth of foolishness in the country, Dr. Yunus’ dream of a scientifically modern democratic state cannot materialize. What we now face is a flood of sentiment. Even self-proclaimed democrats are swept up in it. No one today dares to enact something like Ayub Khan’s Muslim Family Ordinance. The intense backlash that followed the submission of the women's reform commission report makes its implementation nearly impossible for the caretaker government.

The corrupt dictators are responsible for this awakening. Sadly, these corrupt candidates are only seen displaying piety through charity during elections—they are far less sincere in actual religious practice. These corrupt individuals and their parties do not want reform, because if corruption is removed, how will the party earn from nomination trading? Thus, it’s better to abandon the dream of a reformed modern Bangladesh—otherwise, power may slip. Dr. Yunus’ dreams are futile. In Bangladesh, autocracy and public uprisings will continue to coexist side by side.

Ziauddin Ahmed: Former Executive Director, Bangladesh Bank