Tarique Rahman’s interview and future of BNP politics

The most discussed event in Bangladesh’s recent politics is the long interview given by BNP’s acting chairman Tarique Rahman to BBC Bangla. After seventeen long years in exile, this interview is not merely a message of his personal return; rather, it also carries hints of a possible new equation in Bangladesh’s future politics. As one of the main contenders for power, the BNP has long suffered from a crisis of leadership, internal divisions, corruption allegations, and failure to wage an effective movement. In such a context, this public political statement from the party’s top leader has sparked new debate—some see it as the beginning of BNP’s resurgence, while others consider it still an undefined promise.

Tarique Rahman is both a controversial and influential figure in Bangladesh’s politics. He is the party’s executive chairman and the eldest son of former President Ziaur Rahman and former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia. From 2001 to 2006, he was active in party policymaking and organisational affairs, but later he was accused in cases of corruption, bribery, money laundering and the 21 August grenade attack. Since 2007, 84 cases have been filed against him, and he has been convicted in several of them. The most talked about was the ‘Hawa Bhaban scandal’, where he was accused as the central figure in commission trade and bribery.

In 2016, he was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment and fined 20 crore taka in a money laundering case. In 2023, he and his wife, Zubaida Rahman, were sentenced to nine years in another corruption case. However, following the political changes of 2024–25, he was acquitted in several cases. This complex past has not only questioned his image but also turned him into a symbol of a ‘politician who has survived’—someone striving to re-establish himself after failure.

The most talked-about statement in his interview was his declaration to return home: “The time has come; Insha’Allah, I will return to the country very soon.” For a long leaderless BNP, this has been taken as a message of hope. But returning home is not just an emotional issue—it also carries political risks. Cases, arrest, and potential security threats are inevitable for him. Yet, it is clear from his words that he realises leadership credibility cannot be restored without direct contact with the people.

He remarked that participation in elections and staying with the masses are essential. This is significant because the BNP’s defeat and boycott in the 2014 and 2018 elections both eroded public confidence in the party. Tarique’s active involvement could help overcome this psychological weakness, though legal barriers still remain a major uncertainty.

In the interview, he said about the July 2024 mass uprising, “It was the people’s movement, not that of any individual or party.” This comment reflects his political caution—he sympathises with the movement but does not claim ownership of it. Analytically, this is a dual strategy: on one hand, he maintains unity; on the other, he avoids liability. However, such a neutral stance sometimes reveals a lack of confidence in leadership. Because in history, people’s movements are never of abstract ‘people’ alone—they take shape through the active participation of students, workers, youth or the urban middle class. Rendering them nameless may be politically safe but is not humane.

It cannot be denied that seventeen years of exile have distanced Tarique Rahman considerably from the country’s real politics. This distance has protected him from danger, but it has also created limitations in understanding present-day Bangladesh. His decision not to return even after the mass uprising has led many to question his leadership. The blame for the party’s field-level divisions, corruption, and organisational weakness is now being placed directly on his absence.

With Khaleda Zia practically withdrawn from politics, the BNP has turned into a ‘virtual reality’ in leadership. The party that once, in post-independence Bangladesh, created a new language of national identity—‘Bangladeshi nationalism’—is now trapped in reactionary politics. Having lost its narrative of thought, it has made the competition for power its main political criterion.

Although Tarique Rahman’s interview hinted at some outlines for the party’s future, it lacked fundamental policy direction. He spoke about the Awami League’s autocracy and corruption, but remained silent on state terrorism, abuse of security forces, or reform of the administrative structure. This limitation is significant for someone seen as a potential state builder; because true leadership is revealed not only through criticism of opponents but also through a vision of reconstructing the system itself.

His comment on Jamaat-e-Islami was similarly ambiguous: “If they do politics within the law, they will be allowed to do so.” Though this may sound democratic, in Bangladesh’s political history Jamaat is accused not only legally but also morally. Such a comment may weaken the moral position of his leadership.

At present, the BNP’s most urgent task is to show the courage for self-criticism. While criticism of the Awami League’s corruption is justified, avoiding their own responsibility will not take the party to moral high ground. The precondition for political revival is moral rebirth. The party must move beyond the politics of vengeance and build a new vision based on justice, inclusion, and citizens’ rights.

If Tarique Rahman truly wants to begin a new chapter, he must focus on ‘rebuilding the state’ rather than merely ‘regaining lost power’. Not his father’s legacy, but a commitment to building a new Bangladesh based on his own intellect, morality, and pragmatism could set him apart. Without reforming the culture of corruption and extortion within the party, even organisational success will not last long.

In the interview, Tarique Rahman repeatedly mentioned the youth: “The new generation wants change.” This is an important observation, as the BNP has long been unattractive to the youth. Against the Awami League’s narrative of ‘Digital Bangladesh’, the BNP has failed to create an alternative vision. If the party becomes active on social media, engages the youth, and builds a technology-based organisation, it may find its way back to revival.

His ‘31-point plan for state reform’ could also serve as a new foundation in this regard. He has said that opinions from other democratic parties have been included in it—which opens up new possibilities for coalition politics. Yet the question remains: can the BNP, in its current divided reality, build such a unified platform?

The current ruling party in Bangladesh has maintained full control over the administration, electoral system, and media. In this reality, participatory politics is difficult for the BNP. Tarique Rahman has said, “We want politics of change, not conflict.” This means he is now leaning towards an election and reform-based strategy rather than movement-based politics—a step forward from confrontational politics.

The BNP’s future now depends on three elements—leadership, strategy, and public trust. Tarique Rahman’s return could fill the leadership vacuum; strategically, the party must balance between movement and elections; and to regain public trust, it must admit past mistakes and ensure corruption-free politics.

Finally, the question remains—will Tarique Rahman return to the country, and if he does, will he be able to pursue effective politics? If he returns, legal risks are inevitable, but that could also mark the beginning of a new opposition politics. Because without the direct presence of symbolic leadership, it is not possible to rebuild public confidence.

Bangladesh is currently facing severe economic crisis, political fatigue, and a lack of moral leadership. If under Tarique Rahman’s leadership the BNP can build a self-critical, people-oriented, and ethical politics to fill this void, it may once again emerge as a strong alternative force.

Tarique Rahman’s BBC interview is therefore not merely a message of personal return—it marks the beginning of a potential political transformation. The question now is whether he can turn that transformation into reality, or once again fall into the trap of repeating old power politics.