Bangladesh, a nation forged in the crucible of struggle, finds itself once again at an inflection point. The country, which once fought for democracy and self-determination, is now seeing a political landscape  grow increasingly murky. The looming general election is the flashpoint, and the interim government—led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus—is at the heart of the controversy. The administration’s reluctance to adhere to the constitutional deadline for elections has sparked concerns about the future of democracy.

This is more than an internal political quarrel; it has profound regional and global implications. To understand where Bangladesh is headed, one must examine the underlying political forces, the self-interest of key actors, and the potential consequences of continued instability.

Democracy on pause?

Elections are the bedrock of democracy. In Bangladesh, however, they are increasingly being treated as an afterthought. The Chief Adviser has repeatedly suggested that elections will be held by December 2025, yet reports indicate that the interim government is maneuvering for a delay—perhaps by as much as three to four years.

Their justification? The country needs more time to stabilize and implement reforms. This claim, however, rings hollow when scrutinized against the administration’s actual conduct. It is difficult to see their actions as anything but a calculated power play. Key figures within the government appear to be working in tandem with a newly formed political party, positioning it as their successor. That party, in turn, is reportedly backed by business elites who have long benefited from government patronage.

The government’s recent crackdown on the business community—ostensibly to root out corruption—has done little to inspire confidence. If anything, it has reinforced perceptions that the administration is selectively wielding its authority to silence opposition while securing its own foothold in power.

But the real question is whether the Bangladeshi people will accept this indefinite delay in democracy. Historically, Bangladesh has been no stranger to grassroots movements that have forced political change. If the frustration of the public coalesces into a unified demand for elections, the administration’s attempts at prolonging its rule could face stiff resistance.

Perils of constitutional manipulation

Another looming threat to democracy is the proposed constitutional reform. In principle, updating the constitution can be a legitimate exercise. In practice, however, when undertaken by an unelected government, it reeks of political engineering.

The initiative has drawn fierce opposition from major political parties, who see it as an attempt to reshape the nation’s governance structure in ways that serve the interim leadership. In a country where political divides run deep, pushing constitutional amendments without broad consensus is a recipe for further instability.

But the problem runs deeper than a single government’s ambitions. Bangladesh’s political culture is highly centralized, with major parties revolving around a single leader. Decision-making is top-down, dissent is stifled, and political discourse is often reduced to personal loyalty rather than policy vision.

True democratic reform cannot be imposed from above—it must begin within political parties themselves. The introduction of internal democracy, transparent leadership selection, and genuine debate over policy directions would mark a significant departure from the entrenched system of patronage and sycophancy. Unfortunately, there is little appetite for such change among those who benefit from the status quo.

Caught in geopolitical flux

Bangladesh’s political turmoil does not exist in a vacuum. It is increasingly entangled in the broader geopolitical rivalry between major powers. The United States, preoccupied with domestic unpredictability and the shifting global order, has shown little direct engagement with Bangladesh’s internal struggles. However, the presence of senior officials of Indian origin within the Trump administration adds an interesting dimension. Given the current strains in India-Bangladesh relations, New Delhi could seek to leverage its influence to steer Bangladesh’s political trajectory in its favor.

Meanwhile, China has been actively courting Dhaka. Recent high-profile visits to Beijing by Bangladesh’s foreign adviser and Dr. Yunus signal a potential alignment with China—a move that could unsettle the United States and its allies. The result? Bangladesh finds itself at risk of being treated as a bargaining chip in a larger geopolitical contest.

This delicate balancing act is nothing new. Smaller nations caught between rival powers must carefully navigate their foreign policy to safeguard sovereignty while maintaining crucial partnerships. However, Bangladesh's diplomatic approach toward its neighbors has now been marked by a lack of strategic foresight, bordering on negligence. Bilateral relations should be built on principles of justice and reciprocity, ensuring mutual respect and benefit. We need to remember, Bangladesh is not Pakistan. In any geopolitical scenario, national interest must always take precedence. The real challenge lies in managing this diplomatic tightrope without compromising domestic political stability in the process.

Broken political culture

No analysis of Bangladesh’s crisis is complete without acknowledging the failures of its two dominant parties—the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). Both have contributed to the erosion of democratic norms.

The Awami League, in power for 15 years, has seen its reputation tarnished by allegations of corruption and authoritarian tendencies. If the party hopes to restore credibility, it must confront its own missteps, acknowledge past abuses of power, and chart a course that prioritizes democratic integrity over political expediency. Again, Bangladeshi politics will remain largely incomplete without the Awami League.

The BNP, on the other hand, remains burdened by its lack of control in command structure . Party members are involved in serious corruption, extortion and hooliganism that only deepens skepticism about the party’s commitment to democratic governance. Worse still, the BNP has yet to present a compelling alternative vision that resonates with an increasingly disillusioned electorate.

Jamaat-e-Islami, however, continues to be weighed down by its controversial past, particularly its role in the 1971 Liberation War. Its ideological stance stands in direct contradiction to Bangladesh’s secular foundations, often promoting a distorted narrative under the guise of Islam. In reality, Jamaat’s so-called Islamist politics lack any genuine connection to the core principles of the faith. As a political entity, it bears the moral obligation to offer an unconditional apology to the nation for its actions during 1971. Furthermore, if it wishes to engage in democratic politics, it must do so as a secular political party rather than exploiting religion for political gains. After the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s regime, Jamaat has managed to assert significant influence over the government and various state institutions.

All the parties face a stark choice: reform or fade into irrelevance. Bangladeshis are no longer willing to accept politics-as-usual.

Growing radicalization threats

Adding another layer of complexity is the rising specter of radicalism. Reports suggest that extremist elements are gaining traction, with foreign actors allegedly playing a role in fueling Islamist movements. The Yunus government’s perceived leniency toward certain hardline factions has sparked concern, both domestically and internationally. If radical groups gain further foothold, Bangladesh risks descending into a cycle of sectarian strife that could threaten not only national stability but also its international standing.

A failure to act decisively against this growing threat could have dire consequences, both politically and economically. Investors and development partners alike will be wary of engaging with a country perceived as vulnerable to extremism.

Election delays unacceptable

Bangladesh is at a defining moment. The path forward must be one of democratic restoration, not indefinite stagnation under an unelected administration. The people have already signaled their unwillingness to accept continued delays—July’s protests were a harbinger of what may come if elections are further postponed.

For the political class, the message is clear: adapt or be swept away. Internal democracy, accountability, and a genuine commitment to reform are no longer optional—they are imperative. The days of opaque political maneuvering and manufactured delays are numbered.

The choices made in the coming months will determine whether Bangladesh remains on the path of democratic progress or veers toward authoritarian decay. The world is watching. The people are waiting. And history is poised to judge.

(The author is a political and strategic analyst based in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Views expressed are personal. He can be reached at writetomahossain@gmail.com)