Rebuilding Democratic Continuity and Accountability in the New Bangladesh
Al Mamun Harun Ur Rashid :
The events of 5 August 2024 marked more than a political turning point for Bangladesh. They exposed a deeper national reckoning.
The country now stands at a historical junction where the question is no longer who governs, but whether governance itself can be rebuilt after a prolonged rupture in democratic continuity.
For the citizens of what is increasingly described as the “New Bangladesh,” the national psyche has shifted in a fundamental way.
The abstract language of freedom, resistance, and aspiration no longer satisfies a population that has lived through nearly two decades of institutional erosion.
What people are now demanding is practical and urgent: a concrete plan for governance, accountability, and survival.
The recent exchanges between media professionals and Tarique Rahman, Chairman of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, deserve close attention.
His intervention is notable not because it offers easy reassurance, but because it confronts uncomfortable realities.
At the center of his argument lies a blunt premise: restoring democratic continuity is not a matter of political preference. It is a prerequisite for the state’s survival.
What Tarique Rahman is proposing is inherently challenging precisely because it targets the structural habits formed during the past 17 years.
This period did not merely weaken democratic norms; it systematically dismantled the mechanisms that sustain accountability.
Election management was hollowed out, power transitions lost legitimacy, and governance drifted away from public consent toward administrative control.
The destruction of democratic continuity created a vacuum that extended far beyond electoral politics.
Tarique Rahman’s emphasis on accountability acquires a sharper meaning. He is not calling for reform in the abstract; he is responding to a system that normalized impunity and punished independence.
One of the most difficult obstacles he identifies is the entrenched culture of the “security cordon,” a structure that physically and professionally isolated past leadership from reality.
Within this cordon, a dangerous dynamic took hold. Flattery replaced feedback. Oil-smearing or sycophantic activists and aligned commentators constructed a hall of mirrors around decision-makers, reflecting back reassurance while filtering out warning signs.
Ground realities, public anger, and institutional decay were either softened or concealed entirely. Governance, as a result, became detached from lived experience.
This history explains why one of the most demanding elements of the “New Bangladesh” blueprint is the explicit invitation to criticism.
It requires leaders to accept discomfort and demands that the media move from a position of victimization to one of active, critical participation.
This transition is not guaranteed. The habits of silence and self-censorship formed over years do not disappear overnight.
Yet without this shift, any attempt at democratic renewal risks reproducing the same isolation that undermined previous administrations.
Equally challenging is the philosophical pivot Tarique Rahman advocates, away from a “ruler” mindset toward a “service provider” model of politics.
In this framework, accountability is not an abstract value but a non-negotiable operational principle. Power exists to serve, not to insulate itself.
Crucially, he argues that accountability cannot remain centralized. Democratic continuity must be active and regularly tested at every level of society.
It demands credible national parliamentary elections to restore legitimacy at the center.
It requires genuine local government elections, including union parishads and municipalities, so decision-making remains responsive to community needs rather than bureaucratic command.
The argument extends further. Transparent trade body and professional elections are also necessary, ensuring that economic and civic institutions answer to their members rather than political patronage.
This multilevel approach is demanding because it dismantles the logic of control through concentration. It reduces the ability of any single node of power to dominate the system unchecked.
Country’s recent history demonstrates why it matters. When accountability collapses at one level, the damage spreads.
Concentrated power invites abuse, distorts incentives, and eventually paralyzes institutions.
Democratic continuity, in this sense, functions as a preventive mechanism rather than a ceremonial process.
Another difficult but necessary dimension of Tarique Rahman’s position is his focus on the daily lives of ordinary citizens.
Constitutional debates and legal reforms matter, but they often fail to address immediate survival concerns.
His argument pushes political actors to prioritize healthcare, personal security, employment, and basic dignity.
This shift challenges a political culture accustomed to symbolic battles and ideological posturing.
It forces parties to measure success not by slogans or control, but by tangible improvements in people’s lives.
Accountability, in this model, is tested daily through service delivery rather than deferred to election cycles alone.
A generation of young people in the last two decades was politically marginalized. Trust in institutions eroded. Essential systems, including environmental governance, approached collapse.
These outcomes were not accidental. They were the result of a prolonged rupture in democratic continuity.
Restoring that continuity, therefore, is not a legal formality or a concession to tradition. It is a survival strategy.
Transparency, multilevel accountability, and citizen-centered governance are not optional ideals; they are the structural materials required to rebuild the democratic bridge that has been allowed to decay.
The warning embedded in recent history is stark. When the planks of democracy rot, the entire nation risks falling into a vacuum where power operates without consent and institutions exist without legitimacy. The cost of such a vacuum is borne not by elites, but by citizens.
One way to visualize this necessity is to think of democracy as a high-precision engine. For the vehicle of the state to move forward safely, every component must function under scrutiny.
From the local valves of union councils to the national pistons of the cabinet, each part requires regular testing.
If even one component is allowed to bypass accountability, the entire system risks seizing, leaving the nation stranded.
What Tarique Rahman is arguing is difficult precisely because it leaves little room for shortcuts or cosmetic reform.
Yet that difficulty is also its strength. In a post-5 August Bangladesh, restoring democratic continuity is no longer a matter of political debate.
It is the only viable path toward stability, sovereignty, and a future anchored in the will and welfare of the people.
(The Writer is a Senior Reporter of The New Nation)