Politics in troubled water: A portrait of turbulent times

The ambiguity, uncertainty, and tension building up in politics are not just a series of events—they form the portrait of the times. They reflect the deep-seated weaknesses, contradictions, and instability in our system of governance. Almost a year has passed since the change of government, yet we have failed to formulate a clear outline, timeline, or a responsible political narrative. Instead, a complex picture of uncertainty, irresponsibility, and opaque practices is becoming clear. Observing the sequence of events, many are saying that this is part of an invisible plan, the purpose of which is to muddy the waters and achieve personal interests. The reality is that some force is either trying to turn this muddy water into their playground or is a participant in this plan—is there any doubt about that? The government which was considered the most acceptable and powerful is now, even before completing 10 months, clearly showing signs of weakness. The lack of policy clarity, confusion in decision-making, and absence of political goodwill have raised public questions—is this government even aware of where it is heading?

2.
What did the people want? An administration based on good governance, where strict measures against corruption, administrative efficiency, humanity, and the rule of law would be established—didn’t they? Along with that, they wanted a clear outline and timeline for a return to elections and democracy. But instead, people are now witnessing the establishment of mob rule centered around Facebook and YouTube. This has created a new culture of fear within us. It is paving the way for a new form of fascism. If someone posts a video, they are threatened. Meanwhile, numerous demands are being raised from Shahbagh to Jamuna, and surprisingly—the government is yielding under that pressure. Various groups are making demands, each with different purposes and justifications, setting deadlines, and the government is implementing those demands. The question is, then, who does this government represent? The people, or some invisible force? The question is, who is that invisible force? Is it imperialism, or a group driven by expansionism?

3.
What has caused the greatest concern are the events surrounding the activities of some dismissed members of the armed forces. It is not unreasonable to suspect the involvement of anti-state forces behind such actions. The direction in which the situation is heading suggests that the government is either losing control or deliberately pretending to be out of control.

The root cause of this instability is likely the government's internal conflicts or disagreements, indecision, and uncertainty about timelines. It is often unclear where certain government decisions are coming from or who is making them. Even some of the advisers have admitted to being kept in the dark regarding various decisions. All in all, the situation seems to have reached an alarming level. If the government had, immediately upon assuming power, announced a clear plan for returning to democracy, set a timeline, and expressed solidarity with the people's demands—this confusion would not have arisen.

The massive public support behind the July 2024 uprising was a rare convergence in history. Public resentment against the misrule, repression, destruction of the electoral system, impunity, and rampant corruption of the Awami League had grown so intense that people of all opinions and ideologies united in favour of change. The interim government was seen as the embodiment of that public demand.

Since the mandate of the interim government stems from a mass uprising, and since these demands are the very demands of that uprising, opposing a clear stance from the government would have been difficult for any political party. But instead of taking that path, the interim government has created ambiguity around its tenure. Since a faction within the government itself favours staying in power for a prolonged period, the situation has become even more complicated. Not only political parties, but those whom we consider the most important and principal stakeholders in post-uprising Bangladesh (the government, armed forces, BNP, NCPC, and other political forces) are also showing clear divisions among themselves on various issues. From the beginning, many have voiced concerns that some party is lying in wait to take advantage of this murky situation.

This situation raises questions not only for the political opposition but also signals a deep crisis for the state system. When the ruling class itself becomes uncertain about its own foundation, the future of the state drifts toward a vacuum of ideals. Although the BNP is trying to present itself as the main opposition force in this crisis, its political stance is plagued with a clear contradiction. The BNP’s duplicity raises public questions—does the party truly want democracy, or is it simply seeking a route to power? Meanwhile, as politics in Bangladesh has degenerated into a form of group-based autocracy, religion-based politics has begun to rise anew.

4.
Ten months after the interim government took office, we are seeing the people’s initial expectations gradually collapsing. Uncertainty in policymaking, the absence of a clear timeline, and the lack of a participatory decision-making process are becoming increasingly evident. One pressing question is now growing stronger among the people—does this government even know where it is heading? Whose interests is it serving? Is it governing on behalf of the people, or on behalf of vested groups?

The government once thought to be the strongest is now, even before completing ten months, clearly showing signs of weakness. There is no policy clarity, confusion in decision-making, and a lack of political goodwill—all of which have led the public to question—does this government truly know where it is going?

This situation didn’t emerge overnight. Multiple groups now want the government to meet their demands—they want their narrative to be the only truth. As a result, the state is becoming mob-dependent, rather than people-dependent. Those who didn’t take to the streets in 2024 to participate in the uprising are the ones now influencing state decisions. And those who became martyrs, who were charged in cases, who were victims of enforced disappearances—their voices seem to be fading.

If the government had taken the people's mandate seriously, it would have announced a clear roadmap in the very first month—setting a timeline for elections, outlining reform steps, emphasising anti-corruption measures, and committing to judicial processes. But they did not show that courage. Instead, in a precarious attempt to keep power-sharing partners happy, they have made themselves controversial.

Now we see various parties giving various timelines—some say December 2025, others say June 2026. And the largest party, BNP, says this "open-ended timeline" is unacceptable. They want elections by December. On the other hand, the NCP says—if reforms are not carried out before the election, the process will be meaningless. According to them, if the participation of new parties is not ensured, then elections based on old structures will be meaningless.

These disagreements are making the state system even more complicated. Without a timeline, a target, and a clear political agreement, the country cannot move forward. The public will become increasingly confused, and some will try to take advantage and “score in an empty field”. Especially those who, in the past during 2007–08, established a military-backed "strong governance"—they may begin drafting a new blueprint once again.

5.
A conflict has emerged between an adviser and an NCP leader over the issue of reinstating BNP candidate Ishraque Hossain as mayor of Dhaka South City Corporation. This incident may seem minor, but it carries the sign of a deeper discord. The conflict is not merely personal—it reflects underlying political disagreements, group dissatisfaction, and an early manifestation of future power struggles. The government must understand that it is often the accumulation of such seemingly small issues that leads to greater unrest, from which public dissatisfaction can spread.

Weak policymaking and decisions made under mob pressure along with external issues like border-corridor agreements with India, infrastructure discussions with China, and US interference have placed the government under immense pressure. Moreover, decisions such as handing over port control to foreign entities are raising long-term questions—does this interim government even have the legitimacy to make such decisions? Doubts have also emerged among the public and political parties regarding the holding of elections. There are discussions suggesting that the interim government's term may be extended—and it is quite clear that some within the government support such an idea.

6.
In this time of crisis, what the state needed most was responsibility, restraint, and constructive self-reflection. Instead, the chief adviser’s press secretary is openly making political comments. He has mocked an entire political ideology and history by using the term "bonsai left"—which is not only unfortunate but contrary to the spirit of state responsibility. The question arises—Is the press secretary truly a political analyst? Is he a spokesperson for a political party? Or is he a state official whose role is to present, interpret, and oversee the chief adviser's statements and official decisions, and to present government information?

When someone in such a position uses disparaging language against dissenting views, it is effectively perceived as an undeclared bias on behalf of the state apparatus. The press secretary’s statement, which in reality echoes the rhetoric of a specific political faction, is not a constructive part of this government—it is a harmful symptom. It signals just how internally anxious, confused, and unwilling to self-criticism this government truly is.

The use of the term “bonsai” reveals a calculated contempt, exposing an internal arrogance within state power. A bonsai is a tree that has been artificially trimmed so that it cannot grow. If the country’s leftist politics today appear small or marginal, isn’t the state responsible for that? Or is the state itself increasingly becoming a bonsai? The way leftist groups were suppressed, banned, and deliberately disconnected from the masses under every military and quasi-military regime, and the way leftist politics continue to be marginalised in today’s media landscape—this is the very continuation of bonsai making process.

Here, we must recall an important historical truth—every ruling force in this country, whether military or dressed in democratic garb, has consistently belittled the leftists. Yet history has repeatedly shown that these neglected and persecuted leftist parties are the bearers of grassroots, struggle-driven politics in this land. It is this leftist parties that stood at the forefront of various movements—the Language Movement, the struggle for autonomy, the Liberation War, the anti-autocracy uprising, movement to protect national resources, the Tebhaga movement, student movements, and workers’ wage struggles. The force that has repeatedly been labeled “impossible” has, time and again, been transformed by history into its main driving force. And time will tell precisely where those who despise leftist politics will find their place in history.

Today, when leftists speak out against corruption, repression, and authoritarianism of the ruling class, they are mocked as “bonsai left”. This language of contempt is a reflection of deep political intolerance. Therefore, instead of calling them bonsai, it would be more accurate to say they are the radiant roots—no matter how many times they are cut, they sprout again with fresh leaves and branches.

When state spokespersons begin to speak with the language of hate, contempt, and partisanship, the word “neutrality” crumbles within the state. Beneath that rubble are buried democracy, accountability, and politics of dignity.

7.
What is most urgently needed at this moment is the finalisation of an election timeline and framework, one that will encourage all parties to participate. A safe political space must be created for reformist and promising political forces so that competition becomes meaningful. The neutrality and professionalism of the state apparatus must be ensured, so that administrative functions are based not on mob pressure but on principled responsibility and accountability.

If the government still shows courage and transparency on these matters, there is still time to turn things around. Otherwise, this fog and spiral of indecision will drag us toward a dark future—where the old ghosts of militarisation, repression, and political polarisation will rise again.

Bangladesh stands at a critical crossroads. Ahead lies a path of possibility, but looming nearby is a storm of devastation. Our future will depend on the mutual understanding, perspective, and sacrifice of this government, the opposition, and the people. Now is the time to seek a path between hope and wisdom. If delayed, history will not forgive.

Habib Imon: Columnist and political analyst; Presidium Member, Bangladesh Youth Union