Where do the three major political parties stand on reconciliation?

It has been two years since the July mass uprising. In the aftermath of the uprising, the general public, inspired by the vision of a discrimination-free Bangladesh and a new political contract, placed mountainous expectations on the interim government. Debate continues over the extent to which the interim government lived up to those expectations.

The question, in which ways we can move towards a more tolerant and inclusive society has gained increasing attention in the media and at seminars. Not just that, there is also a pressing need within academia to examine the practical dimensions of transitional justice. Against this backdrop, as part of a research project by Routledge, I sought to explore the opportunities and challenges of reconciliation—one of the principal mechanisms of transitional justice—within Bangladesh's historical and contemporary political context.

As part of this work, I had the opportunity to speak with university academics, political analysts and senior leaders from several political parties. Their insights have helped provide a multidimensional and impartial perspective on the prospects for reconciliation in post-July Bangladesh.

Although discussions on transitional justice—and reconciliation as one of its key mechanisms—are relatively new in Bangladesh, more than 40 countries have established such commissions since 1974. In many post-conflict societies, similar initiatives have been undertaken through both formal and informal processes to restore peace and stability. While such processes are generally led by the state, the role of civil society and the media is indispensable in achieving their objectives, shaping their structure and ensuring public acceptance.

2.

Among the core mechanisms of transitional justice, the most widely used is to ensure the prosecution and punishment of offenders through the courts. However, an analysis of relevant case studies from different countries shows that focusing solely on prosecuting perpetrators may satisfy victims and their families, but the punishment of offenders who remain part of the same society does not necessarily ensure the restoration of coexistence between the existing political parties and the civil society. For these reasons, many countries have complemented judicial proceedings by establishing Truth and Reconciliation Commissions in an effort to reduce the deep-rooted social and political divisions.

We saw the beginning of a similar positive initiative in the election manifestos announced by different political parties ahead of Bangladesh’s 13th National Parliament election, where political unity, reconciliation and healing came up in different ways and to varying degrees. However, they in their respective manifestos largely discussed forming unity in present-day Bangladesh through the prosecution of the crimes committed during previous Awami League government's tenure alongside compensation and rehabilitation for the victims.

An analysis of these manifesto commitments inevitably makes it crucial to find the answers to two logical questions which I will attempt to address in this two-part article. First, we need a clear understanding of what our political parties describe as reconciliation in their manifestos, aligns to which extent with the internationally recognised theoretical and practical understanding of the concept.

The second question is this, while it is necessary to address the crimes and allegations of wrongdoing committed during the Awami League government's 15-and-a-half years in power, can Bangladesh's long-standing historical divisions be overcome effectively simply by settling the accounts of that period alone? Without reasonably addressing the many unresolved chapters from earlier periods, can we by resolving only the injustices and wrongdoing of the past 15-and-a-half years truly succeed in establishing reconciliation in a deeply divided society like Bangladesh in the long run?

3.

To answer the first question, let us first examine exactly what commitments towards establishing reconciliation the political parties made in their manifestos ahead of the 13th parliamentary election held in February 2026.

The ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), drawing on the proposed National Reconciliation Commission outlined in its 31-point agenda, pledged in its election manifesto to form a Truth and Healing Commission to establish victim-centred and rehabilitative justice. The manifesto states that the commission would uncover the truth about human rights violations committed during the Awami League government's tenure and, through due process, hold those responsible accountable and bring them to justice. At the same time, it says meaningful compensation would be ensured for those who were persecuted or victimised.

The current opposition party, Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, in its election manifesto pledged to establish a victim-centred and rehabilitative Truth and Healing Commission. To achieve this, the manifesto also stated that a task force would be formed with representation from different segments of Bangladeshi society and that technical assistance would also be sought from the United Nations. The manifesto further stated that the initiative would uncover the truth about human rights violations committed over the past 15 years, which would mark the beginning of a new chapter in national healing and reconciliation.

Meanwhile, the National Citizen Party (NCP) discussed the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in its election manifesto. Like the BNP and Jamaat, they also placed emphasis on ensuring exemplary trials for crimes committed at various times during the Awami League government's tenure. However, what is new in their manifesto is that they have talked about establishing a Truth and Reconciliation Commission modelled on post-Nazi Germany and post-apartheid South Africa. No commission based on such a model was established in Germany after the Second World War though. Rather, we know that the Nazi leaders were prosecuted through the Nuremberg Trials.

Another notable aspect of the NCP manifesto is that they pledge to reintegrate those Awami League supporters and associates within the administration, various state forces and the general public who were not involved in criminal offences, into mainstream society, through social justice, provided they acknowledge their actions and apologise for their involvement.

A question may be raised as to whether the actions taken so far by the BNP, now in government, or the Jamaat and NCP-led opposition alliance since the election are consistent with such a mature political vision, or whether these were merely some symbolic promises included in their manifestos for electoral purposes.

Even so, the commitment made in the election manifestos of the three major political parties to establish commissions for healing and reconciliation including the unraveling of truth may still be regarded as a progressive step indeed. This is because such discussion on transitional justice before any previous election in Bangladesh is unprecedented.

4.

Following the 2024 mass uprising (in May 2025), former law adviser to the interim government Professor Asif Nazrul was the first to mention the formation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to build national unity.

He had said, “The people responsible for heinous crimes such as mass killing and crimes against humanity are so many in numbers. They must certainly be brought to justice. A Truth and Reconciliation Commission is necessary, if only to establish that they (the perpetrators) stand outside the mainstream of this nation.” (Prothom Alo, 10 May 2025).

The former adviser, just like the political parties, also focused solely on bringing to justice the crimes committed during the Awami League regime. Can a commission established from such a perspective truly initiate a process of reconciliation among all political parties in society? Was it to avoid this debate that the BNP and Jamaat deliberately avoided the term “reconciliation” and chose to use only the term “healing”?

Healing primarily focuses on the rehabilitation of victims and the provision of compensation, which is undoubtedly necessary. A reconciliation commission, however, goes beyond justice and rehabilitation by also helping to create a long-term pathway towards reducing social and political divisions within society.

What is noteworthy is that the former law adviser and the then Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed travelled to South Africa with a delegation that included UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) Resident Representative Stefan Liller to gain insights into this issue. However, no further progress was seen towards establishing such a commission during the tenure of the interim government.

Likewise, although nearly six months have passed since the national election, no initiative has yet been taken by the political parties to establish a reconciliation or healing commission, as promised in their election manifestos.

Actually, the primary objective of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission is not merely to identify perpetrators. Rather, one of its key functions is to facilitate a holistic process by uncovering the truth about widespread human rights violations of the past, acknowledging victims’ experiences, promoting accountability, and recommending institutional reforms to prevent the recurrence of such violence in the future. (Priscilla Hayner, 2011; United Nations Report, 2006)

In other words, it is not solely about justice; rather, it is a collective effort aimed at justice, acknowledgement and social reconstruction. For example, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission established in South Africa in 1995 was created with the objective of building a unified society by overcoming the divisions caused by past apartheid and political conflict.

Through public hearings, the commission documented the experiences of victims as well as the testimonies of perpetrators. At the same time, it provided for the granting of amnesty to those who made full disclosure of politically motivated crimes, subject to meeting the legal requirements. (Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 34 of 1995, Section 20(1–3))

Meanwhile, Kenya’s Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission addressed not only individual crimes but also long-standing structural issues such as land disputes, ethnic discrimination and political violence. The Kenya commission’s objective was to identify the underlying social and political causes of these divisions which will help the society prevent future conflicts. The commission also explained that election-related violence had become recurrent in Kenya and that ethnic identities had been exploited for political interests at the time.

An analysis of the objectives and scope of these commissions established in different countries shows that the truth, reconciliation and healing commissions proposed in the election manifestos of Bangladesh’s three major political parties have been presented from a comparatively narrower perspective, both in terms of timeframe and subject matter.

5.

Since the tenure of the interim government, the International Crimes Tribunal has been conducting trials over cases related to the July uprising as well as cases of enforced disappearances committed during the Awami League government’s regime, and verdicts have already been delivered in some of those cases. As the judicial process is already under way, it is now far more important to discuss on outlining a framework for ensuring political and social coexistence among the country’s various parties and groups existing outside the judicial process.

• Umme Wara is an associate professor at the Department of Criminology in the University of Dhaka.

• The views expressed are those of the author.