Bangladesh appears to be witnessing a new political trend: the emergence of new political parties, platforms, leaders and organisational identities. In principle, this should not be a cause for concern. A democratic society should encourage citizens to organise politically, present alternative visions and challenge established political forces. The real question is: Why are so many new parties emerging, what do they represent, and what kind of political culture are they bringing into the national arena?
Bangladesh’s political landscape has experienced profound upheaval in recent years, creating space for new political actors and movements. The emergence of new parties can therefore legitimately express democratic pluralism. But numbers alone do not constitute democracy. A country can have dozens of parties and still suffer from corruption, institutional weakness, patronage, political violence, and concentrated power. The greatest danger is that Bangladesh may create new political parties without creating new politics.
A genuinely new political party must represent a genuinely different political culture. If a new party adopts the same practices that have damaged established parties – personality cults, patronage, muscle power, money politics, extortion, nepotism, intolerance, land grabbing and the pursuit of state power for personal or group interests – then it is not a new political force in any meaningful sense. It is simply old politics wearing new clothes. Bangladesh has repeatedly witnessed political movements begin with promises of reform, justice, democracy and accountability. Yet when organisations acquire influence and access to state resources, some leaders and workers may gradually become part of the very system they once condemned. This is the cycle that must be broken.
Several factors may explain the current emergence of new political organisations. First, political upheaval has created space for younger activists and groups seeking a different political identity. Second, dissatisfaction with traditional political organisations has opened space for alternatives. When established parties fail to provide credible leadership, internal democracy, economic solutions or effective accountability, citizens naturally look for new options. Third, political power remains enormously attractive because control of the state can provide access to policy making, public resources, contracts, appointments, influence and economic opportunities. This creates a troubling possibility: some political initiatives may be motivated less by ideology or public service and more by the desire to establish new networks of influence and economic extraction.
One of the most damaging perceptions in Bangladesh’s political culture is that politics can become an alternative source of livelihood without conventional investment. Political entrepreneurship can appear to offer a different model: invest time, loyalty, personal connections and political allegiance, and potentially gain access to economic opportunities. The problem arises when political loyalty becomes a substitute for competence, and political influence becomes a substitute for productive investment. In its most distorted form, the political marketplace requires neither substantial capital nor professional expertise. What matters is access, loyalty, mobilisation, influence and proximity to powerful leaders.
One visible manifestation of this culture is the widespread display of photographs, posters, banners and festoons featuring political leaders. Political expression is entirely legitimate. But when photographs of powerful leaders are displayed everywhere, they can sometimes serve another purpose: demonstrating proximity to power. It may be used to establish influence, gain preferential treatment, intimidate competitors or demonstrate that an individual is connected to a powerful network.
If political affiliation becomes a passport to contracts, land, business opportunities, protection, influence over administration or immunity from accountability, then politics has effectively become an economic asset.
Perhaps the most damaging manifestation of this political economy is extortion. Money may be demanded from citizens, enterprises, and private institutions. But the ultimate burden is often transferred to ordinary citizens. Unlike legitimate taxation, however, such money does not finance schools, hospitals, roads or social services. It transfers wealth from productive citizens to individuals or networks exercising coercive power. Extortion therefore damages both social justice and economic efficiency.
The same networks may extend beyond money collection into allegations of land, house, building, shop or factory grabbing. The danger becomes particularly serious when citizens believe that refusing an unlawful demand could result in threats, vandalism, forced occupation, physical assault or displacement. Such acts must never be treated as political activities. They are grave criminal offences and must be investigated through independent, evidence-based legal processes.
There is a widespread perception that political leaders at different levels may know about the activities of their extended networks and, in some cases, remain silent. Even more serious are allegations that portions of extortion proceeds collected by political workers may move upward through political networks and benefit individuals higher in the hierarchy. Such allegations must be investigated rather than simply repeated as political accusations.
Every new party should be prepared to answer fundamental questions: Will it tolerate workers demanding money from businesses? Will it protect members accused of land grabbing? Will political leaders intervene when their followers intimidate citizens? Will party organisations discipline members accused of violence? Will they permit independent investigation of their own leaders? Will they protect citizens who refuse unlawful political demands? If the answers remain unclear, changing the party’s name will change very little.
The country does not need more political organisations merely to increase the number of parties. It needs political institutions that are democratic, transparent, accountable and committed to public service. It needs leaders who understand that state power is not private property, political workers are not revenue collectors, public contracts are not political rewards, government institutions are not party offices, and citizens are not sources of political income.
Political parties should compete through ideas, policies and performance, not through muscle, intimidation, patronage and economic extraction. The emergence of young political leaders can be a historic opportunity. But youth alone does not guarantee reform. A young politician can reproduce an old political culture just as easily as an older politician. What matters is political ethics.
Every new political party is usually most attractive before it acquires power. It speaks about reform, promises accountability, condemns corruption and pledges to protect ordinary citizens. But the real test begins after it acquires influence.
Bangladesh now has an opportunity to break the cycle. But replacing old political brands with new ones is not enough. The country must replace the old political culture with a new political ethic.
Public office must be treated as a responsibility, not a commercial opportunity. Politics must create opportunities, not extract money from them. Political workers must serve citizens, not prey upon them. Businesses must be allowed to operate without political taxation. Land and property must be protected by law. And law-enforcement agencies must protect citizens regardless of political identity.
The current proliferation of new political parties can therefore become either a historic democratic opportunity or another chapter in Bangladesh’s long struggle with politics. Do these new parties merely seek to capture state power, or do they genuinely seek to transform the political culture that has made power so profitable?
Bangladesh does not need new faces to operate the old machine. It needs a new political culture that makes the old machine obsolete.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author
The writer is a columnist and political analyst
