When a new government takes office, the public’s expectations are high. People expect change after a period of political uncertainty. However, when people start facing low gas pressure in industries, uncertainty in the fuel market and difficulty getting fertiliser, the issue is no longer simply about economics or administration. It becomes a matter of capacity, as well as public trust.
Another major concern in this crisis is the controversial trade deal with the United States. The agreement was pursued during Bangladesh’s interim government from August 8, 2024, to February 17, 2026 and has faced criticism for the speed at which it was negotiated and the lack of broader national consultation and transparent public debate. A deal, which could affect Bangladesh’s long-term commercial and strategic interests, should be subjected to scrutiny. At a deeper level, this also raises a fundamental question. Did an interim government have the political and moral mandate to make commitments which could have long-term consequences for the country?
Tarique Rahman said in his closing speech at the third session of the 13th National Parliament that the government had inherited a country burdened by widespread irregularities and corruption. He said the government took office at a time when the gas and electricity sectors were in crisis. Industrial production had suffered. The education system was in disarray. Irregularities and corruption also plagued the banking sector. He added that the country’s people were well aware of these problems.
This is a good sign for good governance, but the public also deserves clear answers as to whether the deal is balanced for Bangladesh, its economic value and potential risks. Could it affect Bangladesh’s future policy choices? These questions have not received enough convincing answers. If speed were prioritised over negotiation for the best possible terms for Bangladesh, that would be more than a diplomatic problem. It would present serious questions about the quality of state decision-making. A government should not create long-term obligations based only on short-term political circumstances. The economic and strategic consequences may have to be passed onto future governments and, ultimately, the people of Bangladesh.
The most worrying aspect of the current crisis is the growing gap between what the government says and what ordinary citizens experience. Take fertiliser, for example. The government says the country has sufficient stocks, but farmers in different parts of the country have reported difficulties in getting fertiliser at government-set prices. Some face long queues, some receive limited supplies, and others find themselves paying higher prices.
This highlights a fundamental distinction. Saying the country has enough fertiliser is not the same as saying farmers are not experiencing a crisis. For a farmer, an important question is not how much fertiliser is sitting in government warehouses, but rather is fertiliser available at the local dealer today. The price matters as does timely access. This is where crisis communication should begin. The government should first start by understanding the reality people are experiencing. Recent analyses have highlighted a sharp decline in gas supply and serious load-shedding during July and August. Rural areas have been particularly affected. The situation is also a source of public frustration and political dissatisfaction.
The international situation must also be considered. Conflict in the Middle East and uncertainty around the Strait of Hormuz have placed additional pressure on global energy supplies, and the prices for oil and LNG have also been affected. Bangladesh cannot remain completely insulated from such shocks.
So where is the proper PR crisis communication strategy? A serious crisis communication strategy cannot end with a press briefing. There are several clear steps. The government should acknowledge the problem. The government should explain what is happening. It should act. It should provide regular updates. Most importantly, it should show empathy.
The first step is simple. The government needs to say, “Yes, there is a problem.” Statements which suggest that there is no crisis are dangerously out of touch with people who are experiencing the crisis every day. If fertiliser stocks are sufficient, but distribution is failing, both facts should be communicated honestly. The second step is to provide people with a timeline for solutions. Which districts will receive fertiliser? When will supplies become normal? How large is the shortage? When will damaged power plants return to operation? Where will alternative LNG supplies come from? How long will current fuel stocks last?
The Reciprocal Trade Agreement signed between Bangladesh and the United States on February 9, 2026, has attracted considerable debate. According to the US government, the agreement includes market access for American industrial and agricultural products, trade in energy and other goods, anti-corruption measures and investment cooperation. However, economists and policy specialists in Bangladesh have criticised the agreement on several grounds. Some have described it as unbalanced and rushed. Others have raised concerns about possible impact on Bangladesh’s economic and strategic independence. Questions have also been raised about the legal and constitutional process surrounding the agreement.
The agreement should therefore not be viewed purely as a success in improving relations with the United States. Every major clause should be reviewed; its benefits and costs and possible impact on national interests should be discussed in public.
The government’s biggest mistake would be to dismiss such criticism as political opposition. The better approach would be to put the agreement under public scrutiny. Which clauses benefit Bangladesh? Which ones create risks? Which commitments are binding? Is there room for renegotiation? What could the agreement mean for agriculture, energy, industry and national security? These questions deserve a national discussion involving economists, businesses, employees, farmers, civil society and political representatives. National interest in foreign policy does not belong to a government alone.
So, what should the government do now? First, it should establish a National Crisis Communication Cell. Gas, fuel, fertiliser and food-related crises should be monitored through a coordinated system. Second, it should provide truth-based daily briefings. Good news should be shared. Bad news should also be shared. Third, it should create a real-time public dashboard. Most importantly, the government needs to speak honestly to the public. It should say, “There is a problem. We know it. Some of it is caused by international conditions. Some of it is the result of weaknesses in our own management. We will not be avoiding responsibility. We will take these steps within this timeframe, and will update you every 24 hours.” Such a statement will not resolve the crisis overnight, but it can restore something which is becoming increasingly valuable. Trust. A government does not only provide gas, fuel and fertiliser. It must also provide something else.
The deeper problem is uncertainty. People do not know what tomorrow will bring. Reducing this uncertainty should now be the government’s biggest PR challenge. It should also be its biggest administrative responsibility and one of its most important political tests.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author
The writer is an Associate Professor, Department of Communication and Journalism, University of Chittagong; Doctoral Research Scholar, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, Jadavpur University. Email: [email protected]
