Khaleda Zia’s Long Walk to Democracy and Freedom

Al Mamun Harun Ur Rashid :

Khaleda Zia’s political life stands as one of the longest and most punishing struggles for democracy in Bangladesh, defined by patience under pressure, resilience in the face of repression and an uncompromising refusal to bow before injustice.
Her journey from political widowhood to the centre of mass resistance ultimately converged with a historic outcome: the restoration of democracy through sustained popular struggle.
She entered public life after the assassination of President Ziaur Rahman on 30 May 1981, a moment that reshaped both her personal life and the country’s political trajectory. With no prior ambition for power, she stepped into politics at a time when military rule was tightening its grip on civilian life.
In 1984, she assumed leadership of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, keeping a major opposition force alive when General Hussain Muhammad Ershad’s regime sought to marginalise dissent and erase organised political resistance. Her decision to lead was widely seen as an act of sacrifice rather than self-interest, placing her in direct confrontation with authoritarian power.
From the early 1980s, Khaleda Zia emerged as one of the most uncompromising figures in the anti-autocracy movement against Ershad, whose military coup on 24 March 1982 ushered in nearly a decade of authoritarian rule.
Between 1984 and 1990, she organised nationwide protests, strikes and rallies demanding the end of military rule and the restoration of democracy. During this period, she was repeatedly detained and placed under house arrest at least seven times. Despite intimidation and constant surveillance, she refused compromise, even when political accommodation or exile could have ensured her personal safety.
Her leadership during the turbulent years of resistance reached a critical point in November 1987. When opposition leaders were arrested en masse and violence engulfed the streets of Dhaka, she continued to lead processions and public protests instead of retreating.
The bloodshed that followed, claiming the lives of student leaders, workers, professionals and political activists, only hardened her resolve. For her, democratic rights were non-negotiable, regardless of personal cost or physical risk.
That prolonged struggle culminated on 6 December 1990, when General Ershad was forced to resign following a mass uprising involving political parties across the spectrum, student organisations, professionals and ordinary citizens. Her role, alongside other opposition forces, helped sustain the movement that ended nearly nine years of military rule and reopened the path to democratic transition.
Her commitment to democracy did not end with the fall of autocracy. After winning the February 1991 general election, she became prime minister in March that year and oversaw one of the most consequential constitutional reforms in the country’s history.
In September 1991, she oversaw the passage of the 12th constitutional amendment, restoring the parliamentary system and reducing executive power, including her own authority. The reform was widely regarded as a rare example of a leader willingly limiting power to strengthen democratic institutions.
Political struggle, however, remained inseparable from her career. Between 1994 and 1996, she backed mass movements demanding a neutral caretaker government to ensure credible elections. The agitation led to fresh polls in June 1996 and institutionalised the caretaker system as a democratic safeguard at a time of deep political mistrust.
She returned to power after the October 2001 election, leading a multi-party alliance until October 2006. Despite intense polarisation, she maintained coalition politics and competitive elections in a deeply confrontational environment, keeping electoral democracy intact.
Her most severe test came after leaving office. Following the military-backed caretaker government takeover in January 2007, she was arrested on 3 September 2007. Despite intense pressure to leave the country or withdraw from politics, she refused exile, choosing imprisonment over political exit and framing her decision as a duty to the nation and to democratic resistance.
The years after 2009 proved the harshest phase of her life. As the Awami League consolidated power, Khaleda Zia became the target of multiple legal cases. Her imprisonment on 8 February 2018 in the Zia Orphanage Trust case was viewed by her supporters as part of a vindictive effort to neutralise opposition leadership.
Despite advanced age and deteriorating health, she did not seek political compromise in exchange for freedom. Her conditional release on 25 March 2020, granted on humanitarian grounds, came with restrictions that effectively removed her from active politics, yet even then she did not pursue clemency or personal concessions.
Throughout these years, the personal cost was immense. Her son Tarique Rahman remained in exile for more than 17 years, her family life was fractured and she endured prolonged isolation and illness. Critics argued that reconciliation or compromise could have preserved family unity and personal comfort. Her supporters maintained that she consistently placed people, democracy and country above personal and family interests.
Khaleda Zia’s politics, shaped by endurance and sacrifice, mirrored the broader historical character of Bangladesh’s democratic movements. From the Language Movement of 1952 to the mass uprising of 1969 and the Liberation War of 1971, the nation’s political heritage has been forged through resistance. The anti-autocracy movement of 1982 to 1990, in which she played a central role, stands firmly within that tradition.
Reflecting on those years, she once described the victory over autocracy as the triumph of an uncompromising struggle in which “never once did we compromise at any stage.” That belief came to define her political life. She accepted suffering as the cost of resistance and remained steadfast when compromise might have offered relief.
In death, Khaleda Zia is remembered not merely as a former prime minister, but as a symbol of political resilience. Her long walk to democracy and freedom was built through resisting military rule, restoring parliamentary governance, defending electoral safeguards and enduring repression without choosing personal safety or family comfort over political principle. It is that endurance, tested repeatedly by repression and loss, which will continue to shape how her legacy is judged in Bangladesh’s political memory.
(The writer is the senior reporter of The New Nation)