In Bangladesh, the leadership of major parties is often inherited and not earned
Illustration: TBS
“>
Illustration: TBS
Bangladesh, a nation that fought for independence in the spirit of democracy and autonomy, has long been dominated by dynastic political parties. Despite multiparty politics taking root, the two major political players—the Awami League and Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)—have operated more like family-run enterprises.
By the mid-2000s, these parties used local elections to flex their grassroots power, which intensified when direct party emblems were allowed in 2015.
South Asia, in general, has a rich history of family-led political parties. In India, the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty; in Pakistan, the Bhutto-Zardari family; and in Sri Lanka, the Bandaranaikes and Rajapaksas have all shaped their countries’ political landscapes.
Bangladesh follows this pattern, where the Awami League is led by Sheikh Hasina, daughter of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, while the BNP is managed by Khaleda Zia and her son Tarique Rahman. These dynasties centralise power, limiting genuine democratic competition.
Elsewhere, countries like South Korea and the Philippines present interesting case studies. South Korea successfully ended dynastic rule through civil activism, whereas the Marcos family of the Philippines showcases how corruption and authoritarianism can persist within a seemingly democratic framework.
The famous phrase ‘dynasties dynasty’ was once used by an Indian newspaper to describe the violent ends of two generations of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty.
This also applies to South Asian political families like the Bhuttos, many of whom have been assassinated or exiled. While dynasties present a facade of stability, they are vulnerable to both internal and external threats.
In Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina has governed for over two decades, and her son, Sajeeb Wazed Joy, is rumoured to be her successor.
On the BNP side, Khaleda Zia’s son Tarique Rahman is expected to take over, though he remains in self-imposed exile in London. Such a concentration of power within families raises concerns about the future of democracy in Bangladesh.
This form of governance can be described as a ‘shadow monarchy’. Though not official monarchies, these dynastic political parties operate in much the same way—power is concentrated within a small group of family members.
This undermines political accountability, reducing the democratic process to a competition between two family branches rather than a broader contest of ideas and merit.
Moreover, hereditary political parties or dynastic parties raise significant concerns about political accountability and democratic governance.
In Bangladesh, dynastic parties have led to a stagnation of leadership, where the same families rotate in power with little room for new, innovative leaders to emerge. The people of Bangladesh have repeatedly demonstrated dissatisfaction with this system.
The Mass Movement of 1990 marked a significant turning point in Bangladesh’s political history, as widespread dissatisfaction with centralised power and dynastic leadership forced General Hussain Muhammad Ershad to step down.
This movement highlighted growing frustrations with the lack of democratic governance and the entrenchment of power in the hands of a few.
The political crisis between 2006 and 2008, driven by corruption and intense rivalry between the BNP and Awami League, further exposed the inability to hold free and fair elections, leading to military intervention and the establishment of a caretaker government.
The Shahbagh Movement in 2013, initially focused on justice for war crimes, also saw the ruling Awami League and BNP attempting to protect their vested interests through political manoeuvring.
Similarly, the Quota Reform Movement of 2018 protested against the entrenched power structure under the Awami League government.
These movements underscore a recurring pattern in Bangladesh: when political authority becomes concentrated, whether through dynastic or autocratic rule, it often triggers widespread dissatisfaction, culminating in mass protests or political unrest.
When leadership is inherited rather than earned through democratic processes, it closely resembles a hereditary monarchy. Voters are often left choosing between two family dynasties, rather than a diverse pool of potential leaders, undermining the core democratic principles of leadership rotation based on ideas, merit, and public support.
Comparing this system to a shadow monarchy is not just symbolic but a valid critique, highlighting the concentration of power within a few ruling families and the lack of genuine democratic choice. This comparison reveals deeper structural problems that need addressing to promote meaningful democratic reforms.
In Bangladesh’s unitary political system, where hereditary political parties dominate, citizens are often left with limited political options.
After the widespread uprising that ended Sheikh Hasina’s 15-year rule on 5 August, the BNP likely anticipated a clear path to victory in the upcoming general elections.
However, with the emergence of Professor Yunus’s interim government and its announcement of radical reforms before the elections, this dynamic has shifted.
A critical question now arises: is the support for the interim government a reflection of the July uprising’s mandate, or have the people lost faith in hereditary political parties altogether?
Political strategies, especially in vote-based politics, must now be at the centre of the BNP’s analysis. Some critics argue that the BNP’s primary challenge is to redefine itself to the younger demographic, moving away from its dynastic image.
This shift is vital for the party’s acceptance by the younger generation and its ability to gain a competitive edge in Bangladesh’s evolving political landscape.
As it was previously evident, these dynastic structures harmed democratic institutions. Parties have shifted away from standard political ideology and toward loyalty to the ruling family. Party politics is driven by personal ambition and dynastic succession rather than serving people’s socioeconomic necessities.
Sheikh Hasina accumulated enormous influence, which eventually led to authoritarian tendencies and ruthlessness. During her tenure, allegations of vote-rigging and undermining democratic institutions have clouded recent elections.
Besides, the public revolution of July owes us more in the spirit of politics and in creating leadership beyond party-based politics. The Awami League and BNP, Bangladesh’s dynastic political organisations, have fueled polarisation, restricting political plurality and probably blocking the rise of new leaders.
Bangladesh must promote a political culture where leadership is earned, not given, in order to end the cycle of family dominance which is not less than a shadow monarchy. The bolstering of democratic institutions, and the encouragement of internal democracy within political parties can all help to achieve this.
Md Kowshik Shahriar is a Research Assistant at the Department of Law at North South University
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.