There is a growing concern in Bangladesh over what analysts and leaked cables suggest as a recurring tendency among segments of civil society to sideline traditional political forces and pursue power through non-democratic means.
Critics argue that such efforts often emerge from actors who lack direct engagement with the people and do not enjoy broad-based electoral support.
This pattern, they say, was evident during the political upheaval of 2007 and appears to have resurfaced again in 2024—raising questions about the role of civil society and figures like Professor Muhammad Yunus.
Yunus, who has long been influential within Bangladesh’s civil society, has previously been linked to efforts aimed at restructuring the country’s political landscape.
During the 2007 crisis, he reportedly advocated for the removal of the two former prime ministers—Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina—arguing that meaningful reform would not be possible with their continued presence in politics.
A diplomatic cable sent by then US ambassador Patricia A Butenis on April 16, 2007, later published by WikiLeaks, sheds light on Yunus’s position at the time.
According to the cable, Yunus expressed confidence in the military-backed caretaker government, describing its reform agenda as “beautiful”. He suggested that the “two ladies” would need to be removed from politics for reforms to succeed.
Another diplomatic cable, sent by the ambassador after her meeting with the then director of CTIB, Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI), Brigadier General ATM Amin, sheds further light on the depoliticisation drive.
When asked about allegations of corruption against Tarique Rahman—now the prime minister—Amin reportedly responded, “We’ll get to that,” suggesting that action on certain political figures was being approached selectively.
A former diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, “This is a recurring cycle. Opportunistic segments of civil society will continue to seek control of power by whatever means available.”
He argued that both 2007 and 2024 reflected a failure of political leadership to effectively address governance challenges. Unless political actors undertake meaningful reforms and avoid repeating past mistakes, he warned, such groups will continue to exploit the situation and attempt to assume power.
The 2007 precedent
In the lead-up to the January 2007 elections, a section of civil society launched a campaign promoting “honest and clean candidates,” portraying the political system as deeply flawed. Influential figures, including Muhammad Yunus, Rehman Sobhan, and Debapriya Bhattacharya of the Centre for Policy Dialogue, were associated with these reformist initiatives.
The movement, often criticized as a “top-down” effort led by urban elites, eventually evolved into Yunus’s attempt to launch a political party—Nagorik Shakti—in early 2007. However, the initiative failed to gain popular traction, and Yunus abandoned the plan within months, citing a lack of public support.
Despite this, critics argue that such campaigns contributed to legitimizing the so-called “soft coup” of January 11, 2007, which led to the suspension of elections and the installation of a military-backed caretaker government that ruled for nearly two years.
A report by Bangladesh Media Reform Commission, submitted in March 2025, further highlighted concerns about the role of sections of the media during that period. It noted allegations by Sheikh Hasina that certain leading newspapers had supported efforts to engineer changes in the leadership of major political parties.
Editorial positions including an opinion piece written by editor Matiur Rahman in Prothom Alo on June 11, 2007, titled “Two leaders must step down” called for the two top political leaders to step down.
The 2024 political transition
A similar debate has re-emerged following the political change of 2024. The interim government, formed in August after the ouster of Sheikh Hasina amid a massive student-led uprising, marked another moment where civil society figures assumed central roles in governance.
Student leaders rejected the idea of a military-led administration and instead nominated Muhammad Yunus to lead the transitional government. The interim cabinet was largely composed of individuals from civil society rather than established political parties, including prominent figures such as Syeda Rizwana Hasan and Adilur Rahman Khan.
Yunus also inducted some of the 2007 players, including the then PSO Maj Gen Jahangir Alam Chowdhury and then Election Commissioner Brig Gen Shakhawat Hossain in his administration.
The government also established multiple reform commissions focusing on the judiciary, law enforcement, electoral processes, and anti-corruption—many of them led by civil society representatives. While these initiatives were framed as necessary for systemic reform, critics argue that they also reflected a broader attempt to depoliticize governance.
Concerns deepened amid reports of efforts to prolong the tenure of the interim government. Proposals suggesting an extended stay in power—reportedly up to 10 years—were met with resistance from various quarters.
In March 2026, Asif Mahmud Shojib Bhuyain, a former adviser to Yunus government and current spokesperson for the National Citizen Party (NCP), claimed that influential “deep state” actors had approached the administration with a proposal to remain in power until 2029.
While details remain unclear, the statement added to growing unease about the hidden motive of so-called civil society.
Growing concerns and political reactions
Analysts warn that these developments point to a recurring pattern in which non-political actors seek to assert control over the political process without electoral legitimacy.
Former ambassador and political analyst Md Abdul Hye argued that the events of 2007 and 2024 share striking similarities.
“Both instances reflect attempts by segments of civil society to assume power through undemocratic means,” he said, adding that such groups often view themselves as intellectually superior while remaining detached from grassroots political engagement.
There are also concerns about internal political tensions. Allegations by Nahid Islam, convener of the NCP and opposition chief whip, that the Yunus-led interim government facilitated a transfer of power to Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) through electoral engineering have further fueled debate.
However, Abdul Hye argued that if such manipulation had occurred, outcomes in related processes, such as referendum result would have been different.
In relation to the referendum campaign, he added that the “No” side was not given adequate space or opportunity by the Yunus administration—a practice that contrasts with established democratic norms in countries such as the United Kingdom, where both sides of a referendum are typically ensured equal footing to present their views.
The road ahead
The recurring intersection of civil society activism and state power in Bangladesh raises fundamental questions about the future of its democratic system. While civil society has historically played an important role in advocating reforms and accountability, its direct involvement in governance without electoral mandate remains deeply contested.
As Bangladesh navigates its political future, analysts stress the need for vigilance among political forces to safeguard democratic institutions and prevent any repetition of past disruptions. The challenge, they argue, lies in balancing the constructive role of civil society with the people’s mandate expressed through representative politics—ensuring that reform does not come at the expense of democracy itself.
