On 5 August, a new chapter began in the politics of Bangladesh. After nearly a decade and a half of repression, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and authoritarian party rule, a mass democratic movement has prevailed. Many observers are calling this a turning point in history. However, the leadership that emerged from this victory represents not just a new political reality but also a practical example of leadership theory in crisis.
Amidst the celebration, one particular speech stirred significant response on social media. Calm in tone, restrained in language, yet profound in message—it emphasised unity and compassion over revenge. The call to ensure the safety of Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, and ethnic minorities was a clear directive from a leader who understands that political victory is sustainable only when grounded in moral authority. This leadership came from Tarique Rahman, the Acting Chairman of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).
In modern political communication, a leader’s words are not merely to be heard—they reflect a philosophy, a vision. Tarique Rahman’s address was devoid of vindictiveness or provocation; instead, it conveyed a sense of responsibility. It may be compared to Nelson Mandela’s “truth and reconciliation” approach after coming to power in South Africa. The restraint from revenge following victory is often a mark of the highest form of leadership in history.
Tarique Rahman’s preparedness was not sudden. As early as 2023, he presented a 31-point outline for state reform, which included provisions for a bicameral parliament, judicial reform, amending Article 70 of the Constitution, and guaranteeing equal rights for all, regardless of religion or ethnicity—a vision akin to a “Rainbow Nation”. This structural framework represents a form of institutional imagination—not merely a change in power, but a redefinition of the state itself.
Another significant feature of this era is the BNP and its leadership’s embrace of the “sacrifice model of leadership”. In the interest of consensus, the party accepted the proposal that no one may serve as Prime Minister more than twice—a move that runs contrary to its own potential benefit. This is a powerful precedent in politics, reflecting a leadership that prioritises national interest over party ego.
In today’s political context, the dream of a New Bangladesh is not just a slogan—it points to a well-thought-out and inclusive framework. Tarique Rahman has stated that even with a parliamentary majority, the BNP would prefer to form a national government rather than rule alone. The proposal to establish an upper house of parliament with participation from intellectuals, journalists, artists, teachers, and lawyers—non-partisan professionals—demonstrates both magnanimity and confidence.
In global political terms, where transitions in countries like Poland, Turkey, or Sri Lanka remain fraught with uncertainty, such a leadership approach could carve out a unique position in South Asian politics. The slogan “Not Delhi, not Pindi, not any other nation—Bangladesh first” is more than a diplomatic stance; it is a declaration of sovereign self-respect—prioritising friendship with all, domination by none.
Another key test of leadership lies in press freedom and freedom of expression. Under Sheikh Hasina’s authoritarian regime, journalists were routinely persecuted under the Digital Security Act. In contrast, Tarique Rahman has shown no concern even when caricatured in the media. His approach of viewing the media as a partner adds a new dimension to leadership.
From grassroots councils to the central level, the BNP’s democratic process of leadership selection and the recognition of long-serving leaders and activists is organisationally strengthening the party. This proves that even with the possibility of coming to power, the BNP is progressing with democratic values at the core of its leadership. Just as Tarique Rahman upholds democracy within his party, he is equally committed to defending it across the nation.
Ultimately, the true test of leadership lies in times of crisis. In the aftermath of 5 August, maintaining national order, prioritising reconciliation over revenge, and laying out a vision for a united and constructive state system—Tarique Rahman’s actions have created an exceptional example in the South Asian context. Whether he will succeed is a matter for the future. But what is clear is that he is showing the way forward—and many now believe that the new Bangladesh will move ahead under his guidance.
In 1975, following the fall of the one-party rule of BAKSAL, Ziaur Rahman emerged as a response to public aspiration. At a time of leadership vacuum and political uncertainty, he not only assumed power but also established himself in a historically distinct position by opening the path to multi-party democracy. His declaration of independence, participation in the Liberation War, and the soldier-people uprising of 7 November established him as a “saviour” in the eyes of the nation.
According to political history theory, when institutional structures collapse in crisis, history calls forth new leadership—leadership that not only resolves immediate problems but also becomes a symbol of new political direction. The current political narrative forming around Tarique Rahman aligns with that theory. In BNP-aligned political circles, he is being presented as the ideological successor of Ziaur Rahman and as an alternative to fascist rule.
This narrative is not driven solely by emotion—it is a form of strategic historical synthesis—drawing parallels between past leadership and present crises to claim a place in the people’s political imagination. This is a common trend in history: as seen with Nehru-Indira-Rajiv in India or the Kennedy family in American politics.
During the Cold War, foreign influence—especially from the US, China, and India—played a vital role in determining Bangladesh’s internal power dynamics. Today’s geopolitical reality is shaping up similarly. The new polarisation among China, the US, and India has once again brought Bangladesh to the threshold of transformation. In such international systems, a leadership’s legitimacy survives only when it can balance domestic public support with global strategic acceptability.
The political narrative constructing Tarique Rahman as a “symbol of change” operates on multiple levels. On one hand, prolonged political stagnation, democratic suppression, and public resentment have elevated him as a symbol of alternative and capable leadership. On the other, by drawing a parallel with the historic era led by his father Ziaur Rahman, the present crisis is positioning Tarique as a successor in a continuous historical lineage.
This strategy is not new to South Asian politics. Following Sri Lanka’s 2022 uprising, Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s rise amidst political paralysis also emerged as a “tactic of historical recurrence”. There, too, he presented himself as a new alternative leader, learning from past failures and offering a message of future reform. The narrative surrounding Tarique Rahman is being shaped within a similar historical framework—recollecting past glory, translating present anger into hope, and constructing a moral foundation for the future.
This is not mere emotional populism; it is part of a structured engagement with political history—aimed at constructing a parallel timeline to legitimise leadership through historical reinterpretation. Sri Lanka’s experience showed that when institutions fail, public hope concentrates on individual leadership—similarly, in Bangladesh’s current crisis, Tarique Rahman is emerging as a “historical necessity”.
