M A Hossain<\/p>\n
Politics in Bangladesh has rarely been a gentle craft. It has been a battlefield. Victory has meant annihilation. Defeat has meant persecution. For decades, the culture was simple: win at all costs, govern without mercy, and prepare for revenge. The result was predictable \u2014 cycles of bitterness, institutional decay, and a democracy that existed more in speeches than in spirit.
\nBut moments arrive in history when a leader is handed not merely power, but an opportunity to redefine a nation\u2019s political character. Tarique Rahman now stands at such a moment.
\nThe mass uprising of 5 August 2024, which led to the ouster of Sheikh Hasina\u2019s government, was not merely a political transition. It was an eruption of public exhaustion. It signalled that Bangladeshis were tired of institutional weaponisation, tired of partisan vengeance, tired of politics that felt less like governance and more like perpetual civil war. The landslide victory of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), securing 209 seats, was not simply an electoral triumph. It was a national plea for a reset. And resets require statesmanship.
\nThere are times when political leaders must look less like tacticians and more like healers. This is one of those times. Tarique Rahman would do well to look towards the example of Nelson Mandela. Mandela inherited a nation on the brink \u2014 fractured by race, scarred by imprisonment, poisoned by resentment. He had every moral justification for vengeance. Instead, he chose reconciliation. He understood a profound truth: justice without forgiveness becomes another form of oppression.
\nBangladesh, though different in context, faces a parallel psychological crossroads. After years of confrontation politics, after the institutional lapses and excesses that defined previous administrations, there is understandable anger. But anger, if institutionalised, will only reproduce the very system that citizens rejected.
\nHistory offers another example closer to home. General Ziaur Rahman, after the turmoil of the mid-1970s, did not govern through perpetual purges. He sought political normalisation. He opened political space. He reintroduced multiparty democracy. Whatever one\u2019s partisan assessment of his legacy, he recognised that nations fractured by upheaval cannot survive on retribution alone. They require integration.
\nThe father sought unity after instability. The son now faces a similar test. The recent courtesy calls by Tarique Rahman on other political contenders were more than symbolic gestures. In a country where leaders rarely visit rivals except to denounce them, such meetings carry cultural weight. They signal that electoral victory does not translate into moral monopoly. They hint at a shift from \u201cwinner-takes-all\u201d to \u201cwinner-leads-all.\u201d
\nHis public warning against revenge politics was equally significant. Words matter in transitional periods. They can either inflame or stabilise. By urging party workers to avoid conflict and emphasising that the victory belongs to democracy \u2014 not merely to the BNP \u2014 Tarique Rahman positioned himself above partisan triumphalism. That is the language of a statesman, not merely a victor.
\nBut gestures, while important, must mature into institutions. Bangladesh now needs a formal reconciliation process. Not a theatrical commission designed to embarrass opponents. Not selective accountability. A genuine, structured national dialogue aimed at repairing trust between parties, strengthening institutional independence, and defining rules of democratic competition that survive changes in power.
\nThe world offers ample precedents. South Africa\u2019s Truth and Reconciliation Commission prevented civil war. Rwanda, after the genocide, used community-based justice mechanisms to rebuild social cohesion. Even in Latin America, post-authoritarian governments have balanced accountability with political reintegration. The lesson is not that past wrongs should be ignored. It is that societies must decide whether punishment or stability will be their organising principle.
\nAfter a mass uprising, wisdom lies in drawing a line \u2014 not to erase history, but to prevent history from consuming the future. Institutional lapses must be corrected through reform, not revenge. Oversight must replace obstruction. Parliament must become a chamber of argument, not a theatre of vendetta.
\nThere are encouraging signs. Jamaat-e-Islami\u2019s pledge to act as a \u201cstrong opposition\u201d rather than an obstructive one hints at political maturation. The political climate itself is shifting. Citizens, particularly the younger generation who powered the uprising, are less patient with old hostilities. They demand governance, not drama.
\nYet the temptation of retribution will linger. Supporters who suffered during previous administrations will demand repayment. Political activists accustomed to confrontation may resist moderation. Here lies the true test of leadership: the ability to disappoint one\u2019s most fervent supporters for the sake of national stability.
\nMandela did it. He risked alienating radicals within his own movement. Ziaur Rahman did it in his own way, prioritising normalisation over prolonged purges. Tarique Rahman must now decide whether he wishes to be remembered as a partisan victor or a national unifier.
\nUnity does not mean ideological surrender. It means establishing a political culture where disagreement is fierce but not existential. Where opposition is respected, not criminalised. Where elections determine power, but institutions limit its abuse.
\nA reconciliation framework could include cross-party constitutional dialogue, judicial reforms to ensure neutrality, depoliticisation of administrative bodies, and protections for peaceful dissent. These are not abstract ideals. They are safeguards against the relapse into authoritarian reflexes.
\nBangladesh stands at the edge of a new dawn. The uprising dismantled a regime. The election produced a mandate. But mandates are burdens, not trophies. They demand restraint in victory and magnanimity in power.
\nIf Tarique Rahman embraces the mantle of unity \u2014 if he becomes a symbol of forgiveness, prospect, and democratic maturity \u2014 he will not merely lead a government. He will reshape the political grammar of the republic. And that would be a legacy far greater than 209 seats in parliament. The alternative is depressingly familiar: renewed cycles of accusation, institutional weaponisation, and the slow erosion of public trust. Bangladesh has walked that road before. It ends nowhere.
\nA new democratic Bangladesh requires courage of a different kind \u2014 not the courage to fight, but the courage to forgive; not the instinct to dominate, but the discipline to reconcile. History occasionally gives leaders a Mandela moment. It is rare. It is fragile. And it does not wait forever. Tarique Rahman now has one. The question is whether he will seize it.<\/p>\n
The writer is a political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at writetomahossain@gmail.com<\/p>\n
Courtesy<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
M A Hossain Politics in Bangladesh has rarely been a gentle craft. It has been a battlefield. Victory has meant annihilation. Defeat has meant persecution. For decades, the culture was simple: win at all costs, govern without mercy, and prepare for revenge. The result was predictable \u2014 cycles of bitterness, institutional decay, and a democracy […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[13085],"class_list":{"0":"post-534225","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-article","7":"tag-m-a-hossain"},"yoast_head":"\n