1 week Ago
In the months following the end of a long and autocratic rule, Bangladesh has witnessed a fragile but remarkable return to administrative sanity. Under the interim government, led by Prof Muhammad Yunus, the state has achieved a measure of control that seemed impossible under the previous regime. The management of Eid travel and the stabilisation of food prices during Ramadan stand out as concrete improvements.
These are not small feats, especially given the devastating state in which this government inherited its institutions and economy. As someone who supported the idea of an interim administration led by Prof Yunus long before it materialised, I take personal pride in these early achievements. They reflect not only the credibility of his leadership, but also the seriousness of a government trying, however briefly, to re-establish the idea that public service should serve the public.
However, praise must be accompanied by proportion. Prof Yunus himself would be the first to say that this is a team effort—one enabled by a reform-oriented planning ministry, a finance ministry willing to act against cartels, and state agencies such as the Trading Corporation of Bangladesh given actual authority to intervene in markets. Crucially, none of this would have been possible without a renewed civic energy: a citizenry that, after the mass uprising of July 2024, has become more aware, more vocal, and far less tolerant of manipulation.
And yet, a new danger is emerging from within the very segment of society that should know better. Among urban, educated, social media savvy citizens, a narrative is spreading with alarming speed—that Prof Yunus should stay on, not for three months, but for three years or more. Some of this sentiment is organic, born of understandable exhaustion.
But some of it, clearly, is not. There are unmistakable signs that promotional campaigns are shaping this rhetoric, possibly by groups that are uneasy about elections and accountability. At the heart of this sentiment is an implicit belief that because this interim government has delivered some basic services better than the last unelected regime, it is therefore more fit to rule long-term.
This logic is not only flawed, it is historically dangerous. There are several reasons why this logic must be challenged. First, no interim government, however competent, has the mandate to govern a democracy.
Second, the idea that Bangladesh never experienced good governance until now is plainly untrue. The arc of our national development, with all its contradictions, has included moments of serious reform, dedicated leadership, and meaningful public service. Third, short-term efficiency should not be mistaken for the long-term work of institution building.
Real transformation requires depth, continuity, and accountability. No interim body, however sincere, can deliver that. But the deeper issue here is a lack of political education.
The call for an extended unelected rule, following the fall of an autocrat, is a contradiction that must be named. We cannot claim to support democracy while asking an unelected official to govern indefinitely. We cannot honour the sacrifice of thousands of citizens in the July movement only to discard the principle of popular sovereignty so soon after victory.
This is where the insights of political philosophy remain relevant. European thinkers such as Rousseau, Hegel, and Tocqueville, however culturally distant, understood one core truth: democracy is not natural; it must be learned. Freedom is not merely the absence of tyranny, but the presence of civic responsibility and political maturity.
Rousseau's Émile teaches that the good citizen must be educated into self-awareness, not simply granted formal liberty. The teacher must guide the child not only towards freedom, but towards the recognition that freedom is only meaningful within a just society. Hegel, in his vision of Bildung , emphasises the development of the individual through structured encounters with the institutions of state—family, civil society, law.
Through this process, the individual becomes capable of true freedom, which is found not in isolation but in participation. Tocqueville observed that in America, political freedom was sustained not by theory, but by practice—by the habits of local engagement, voluntary associations, and religious socialisation. A democratic state, in his view, can only function when the citizen has already internalised the ethics of liberty.
All three thinkers, despite their differences, converge on one point: democracy must be underpinned by education—not technical education, but moral and civic education. It is precisely this education that is lacking among many of our best-educated citizens today. To see people, many of them graduates of elite institutions, calling for a "benevolent extension" of interim rule is to witness how little they understand the hard demands of democratic life.
Governance is not a matter of finding the perfect person; it is about building institutions that prevent abuse and ensure continuity regardless of who holds office. This article is not an attack on Prof Yunus. He has served well and with integrity.
But the real test of his leadership lies not in how long he stays, but in whether he can oversee an orderly, timely transition to elections. The future of our republic depends not on individuals, but on principles. Let us not replace an unelected despot with an unelected reformer, however well-meaning.
Let us demand of ourselves the maturity to distinguish temporary competence from lasting legitimacy. We need not rush into cynicism—but neither should we retreat into comfort. The path forward is difficult.
It requires an educated public, a culture of civic participation, and institutions that reflect the people's will. The alternative is clear: a cycle of dependency, however refined, that will eventually bring us back to where we started. Bobby Hajjaj is the chairman of Nationalist Democratic Movement (NDM) and a faculty member at North South University.
He can be reached at [email protected] . Views expressed in this article are the author's own. Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals.
To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission . In the months following the end of a long and autocratic rule, Bangladesh has witnessed a fragile but remarkable return to administrative sanity. Under the interim government, led by Prof Muhammad Yunus, the state has achieved a measure of control that seemed impossible under the previous regime.
The management of Eid travel and the stabilisation of food prices during Ramadan stand out as concrete improvements. These are not small feats, especially given the devastating state in which this government inherited its institutions and economy. As someone who supported the idea of an interim administration led by Prof Yunus long before it materialised, I take personal pride in these early achievements.
They reflect not only the credibility of his leadership, but also the seriousness of a government trying, however briefly, to re-establish the idea that public service should serve the public. However, praise must be accompanied by proportion. Prof Yunus himself would be the first to say that this is a team effort—one enabled by a reform-oriented planning ministry, a finance ministry willing to act against cartels, and state agencies such as the Trading Corporation of Bangladesh given actual authority to intervene in markets.
Crucially, none of this would have been possible without a renewed civic energy: a citizenry that, after the mass uprising of July 2024, has become more aware, more vocal, and far less tolerant of manipulation. And yet, a new danger is emerging from within the very segment of society that should know better. Among urban, educated, social media savvy citizens, a narrative is spreading with alarming speed—that Prof Yunus should stay on, not for three months, but for three years or more.
Some of this sentiment is organic, born of understandable exhaustion. But some of it, clearly, is not. There are unmistakable signs that promotional campaigns are shaping this rhetoric, possibly by groups that are uneasy about elections and accountability.
At the heart of this sentiment is an implicit belief that because this interim government has delivered some basic services better than the last unelected regime, it is therefore more fit to rule long-term. This logic is not only flawed, it is historically dangerous. There are several reasons why this logic must be challenged.
First, no interim government, however competent, has the mandate to govern a democracy. Second, the idea that Bangladesh never experienced good governance until now is plainly untrue. The arc of our national development, with all its contradictions, has included moments of serious reform, dedicated leadership, and meaningful public service.
Third, short-term efficiency should not be mistaken for the long-term work of institution building. Real transformation requires depth, continuity, and accountability. No interim body, however sincere, can deliver that.
But the deeper issue here is a lack of political education. The call for an extended unelected rule, following the fall of an autocrat, is a contradiction that must be named. We cannot claim to support democracy while asking an unelected official to govern indefinitely.
We cannot honour the sacrifice of thousands of citizens in the July movement only to discard the principle of popular sovereignty so soon after victory. This is where the insights of political philosophy remain relevant. European thinkers such as Rousseau, Hegel, and Tocqueville, however culturally distant, understood one core truth: democracy is not natural; it must be learned.
Freedom is not merely the absence of tyranny, but the presence of civic responsibility and political maturity. Rousseau's Émile teaches that the good citizen must be educated into self-awareness, not simply granted formal liberty. The teacher must guide the child not only towards freedom, but towards the recognition that freedom is only meaningful within a just society.
Hegel, in his vision of Bildung , emphasises the development of the individual through structured encounters with the institutions of state—family, civil society, law. Through this process, the individual becomes capable of true freedom, which is found not in isolation but in participation. Tocqueville observed that in America, political freedom was sustained not by theory, but by practice—by the habits of local engagement, voluntary associations, and religious socialisation.
A democratic state, in his view, can only function when the citizen has already internalised the ethics of liberty. All three thinkers, despite their differences, converge on one point: democracy must be underpinned by education—not technical education, but moral and civic education. It is precisely this education that is lacking among many of our best-educated citizens today.
To see people, many of them graduates of elite institutions, calling for a "benevolent extension" of interim rule is to witness how little they understand the hard demands of democratic life. Governance is not a matter of finding the perfect person; it is about building institutions that prevent abuse and ensure continuity regardless of who holds office. This article is not an attack on Prof Yunus.
He has served well and with integrity. But the real test of his leadership lies not in how long he stays, but in whether he can oversee an orderly, timely transition to elections. The future of our republic depends not on individuals, but on principles.
Let us not replace an unelected despot with an unelected reformer, however well-meaning. Let us demand of ourselves the maturity to distinguish temporary competence from lasting legitimacy. We need not rush into cynicism—but neither should we retreat into comfort.
The path forward is difficult. It requires an educated public, a culture of civic participation, and institutions that reflect the people's will. The alternative is clear: a cycle of dependency, however refined, that will eventually bring us back to where we started.
Bobby Hajjaj is the chairman of Nationalist Democratic Movement (NDM) and a faculty member at North South University. He can be reached at [email protected] . Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission ..
