New Cabinet: Can the State Forge a New Social Contract of Trust?
Prof. Dr. Md. Nazrul Islam Tamiji :
Changes in power are not new in our country. But not all changes are the same. Some merely replace a government; others carry the potential to reshape the very character of the state.
The present moment places us before the latter possibility. Therefore, discussion about the new cabinet should not be confined to who gets which ministry.
The central question is how the relationship among the state, society and citizens will be restructured.
The founder of sociology, Auguste Comte, viewed society as a reality formed through a balance between order and progress.
Stability, he argued, is impossible without continuity, yet society cannot advance without change.
Bangladesh now faces precisely this dual challenge: rebuilding trust while maintaining continuity in governance.
A state that remains static while people’s aspirations stagnate cannot sustain stability. Conversely, change that erodes institutional foundations invites disorder rather than development.
Karl Marx explained that political structures ultimately reflect underlying social forces.
A new government therefore generates new expectations—economic justice, equitable distribution of opportunity, and participatory development.
Citizens no longer wish merely to hear promises; they want to see tangible outcomes: employment, fair wages, social protection and visible initiatives to reduce inequality.
When expectations remain unmet, political change fails to translate into social transformation and instead breeds frustration and alienation.
Émile Durkheim emphasized the importance of social cohesion, arguing that societies endure through mutual trust and collective consciousness.
In Bangladesh, overcoming a long-standing culture of division, distrust and confrontation must be a central responsibility of new leadership.
Trust in the state is essential, but so too is mutual respect among citizens. Democracy is not merely a voting mechanism; it is an ethical culture of coexistence.
Max Weber highlighted the importance of rule-bound, rational authority in governance. Democracy cannot be strengthened unless institutions—not individuals—form the foundation of administration.
When governance runs on loyalty rather than rules, development cannot be sustained.
Personalistic leadership may deliver quick results, but institutional governance builds lasting trust. Law, policy and accountability must function together for a modern state to succeed.
Herbert Spencer likened society to a living organism, where balance among all parts is essential.
Economy, politics, education and culture are interdependent. Excessive expansion or neglect in any one sector weakens the whole system.
Development, therefore, cannot be measured solely by infrastructure or growth statistics; human capital, ethical values and good governance are equally vital.
Jane Addams, meanwhile, stressed a humane vision of the state, arguing that a nation’s success should be measured by improvements in the lives of its most marginalized citizens.
This perspective holds particular relevance for Bangladesh, where rural–urban disparities, youth unemployment and social security challenges remain pressing concerns.
At this juncture, the most important question confronting the new cabinet is whether it will signal change merely through administrative reshuffling, or whether it will cultivate a new political culture grounded in policy reform, participation and accountability.
If the state can establish genuine dialogue with citizens—listening, understanding and responding—this transition could become a transformative chapter in history.
Bangladesh’s political past teaches us that changes of power are fleeting, but institutional reforms endure.
What is needed today is a governing philosophy in which development is reflected not only in numbers but in people’s lives; where the strength of the state safeguards rather than constrains citizens’ freedoms; and where dissent is treated not as conflict, but as a sign of democratic maturity.
This moment, therefore, is not merely the beginning of another government. It could be a historic opportunity to redefine the relationship between state and society.
The true success of change will depend on whether we seek only a transfer of power—or a transformation in the culture of governance.
Current political discussions surrounding a possible new administrative arrangement reflect these sociological ideas in practice.
Conversations about a potential government led by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party suggest an attempt to balance experience with a new generation of leadership.
While the name of Tarique Rahman is circulating in political discourse as a possible prime minister, no formal announcement has yet been made—an entirely normal feature of democratic process.
However intense public expectations may be, decisions reached through constitutional procedures and political consensus remains hallmarks of an institutional state.
This interim period should thus be viewed not as uncertainty, but as preparation for political transition.
Senior leaders are being discussed for key roles, reflecting expectations of administrative continuity and reform.
Speculation about experienced figures in local government, public works, foreign affairs, law, public administration and economic management signals a desire to reconnect governance with institutional capacity and policy coherence.
In particular, economic leadership will be critical amid global pressures, inflation, foreign exchange challenges and the need to create an investment-friendly environment.
Such roles are not merely administrative—they embody the state’s development philosophy.
Discussions also point to the possible inclusion of technocrats alongside political leaders, indicating an effort to combine professional expertise with political experience.
The inclusion of trusted associates of past leadership, participation of alliance partners, and representation of younger voices suggest an attempt at broader political accommodation and intergenerational dialogue.
Emphasis on labor markets and employment generation further reflects the demographic reality of Bangladesh.
A youthful population represents both immense potential and, if neglected, significant pressure.
Policies focused on skills development, domestic job creation, technology-driven training and expansion of overseas employment could strengthen both economic resilience and social stability.
Taken together, these discussions are not merely about allocating portfolios; they foreshadow the state’s future priorities.
A government becomes historically significant when it not only organizes administration but also builds new foundations of public trust, economic justice and institutional capability.
In sociological terms, this moment may be understood as a search for a new social contract.
Citizens now demand not rhetoric but functioning institutions, accountable administration and inclusive development that creates opportunities for all. Without making citizens genuine partners, political legitimacy cannot endure.
Bangladesh now faces three fundamental questions:
First, will governance shift from personality-centered to institution-centered practice?
Second, will development become genuinely inclusive?
Third, can politics move from a culture of confrontation to one of cooperation?
Sociology offers a simple lesson that the strength of a state lies not in its power, but in its legitimacy.
If new leadership prioritizes rebuilding trust, this political transition could mark a positive turning point in history. Otherwise, it will remain just another episode of power.
Bangladesh today stands before that choice—and before the opportunity to write its next chapter.
(The author is a Poet, Sociologist & Chairman of National Human
Rights Society)