What are the Prime Minister's challenges in changing the political culture?

In post-July Bangladesh, public expectations were not limited to a change in government; people also hoped for a transformation in the country's political culture. After years of conflict, polarisation, and a style of politics that treated opponents as enemies, they wanted a more restrained, accountable, and people-centered approach to governance.

Against this backdrop, recent images of Prime Minister Tarique Rahman have naturally drawn public attention. He is seen carrying his own bag, his own umbrella in the rain, waiting in compliance with traffic rules, posing for photos with children, or interacting with the common people in a cordial and unassuming manner.

For many, these are more than simply the personal habits of a political leader. They are seen as symbolic signals of a new political culture. Yet the question remains: can the public conduct of one single leader bring about an overall transformation in a country's political culture?

Political scientists Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba argued in their book ''The Civic Culture'' that political culture shapes not only the way a state is governed but also people's thinking, tolerance, and willingness to accept differing opinions. When a society becomes accustomed over many years to conflict, polarisation, and a style of politics that treats opponents as enemies, those habits inevitably influence everyday life. People begin to value party or faction over reason. Differences of opinion easily turn into personal conflicts, and patience for listening to opposing views gradually declines.

Bangladesh is no exception to this reality. Long-standing political divisions have not remained confined to political parties alone. Their effects have spread to the language used on social media, relationships in the workplace, and even interactions within families and among friends. In many cases, identity, party affiliation, or political allegiance has come to matter more than reasoned argument.

This is where a leader's conduct becomes significant. If political culture can shape people's behaviour, then a leader's personal example can also serve as the starting point for change. Prime Minister Tarique Rahman's recent actions can be viewed from this perspective. However, such change will become meaningful only if the same values are reflected in the conduct of the cabinet, political parties, the civil service, and other state institutions.

When behaviour itself carries a political message, another question naturally arises: does the conduct we observe from a leader in public fully define that leader''s style of leadership, or is it merely one element of political presentation?

To explore this question, it is useful to recall the work of Canadian sociologist Erving Goffman. In his influential book ''The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life,'' Goffman argued that social life resembles a theatrical performance. The version of a person that we see on stage is the "front stage." Behind the scenes, however, lies another world where decisions are made, strategies are formulated, and genuine patterns of behavior emerge. This is the "backstage."

This idea is equally relevant to politics. What a leader wears, what they say, how they interact with common citizens, and how they present themselves in public all matter. Such behaviour conveys important messages to the public.

Yet these are only one aspect of leadership. Ultimately, people judge a leader by the decisions made by their government, the conduct of the administration, the actions taken during times of crisis, and the leader's willingness to stand up against the abuse of power.

People do not judge a political leader solely by what they see in the present. They also carry with them the weight of past experience. French sociologist Maurice Halbwachs argued in his book ''On Collective Memory'' that every society possesses a collective memory. When new events occur, people do not view them in isolation; instead, they interpret them through the lens of familiar experiences from the past.

Bangladesh's political landscape reflects this reality. People may hold differing views about the many political developments of the past two decades. Yet certain symbols, phrases, and memories continue to shape political perceptions. Whether those memories are entirely accurate or not is not the central issue. What matters is that they remain vivid in the public consciousness.

This is why the term "Hawa Bhaban" continues to resurface in political discussions. It is not merely the name of a building; for many people, it has become a political symbol. As a result, whenever a new controversy emerges, people often interpret it through the lens of those earlier experiences.

Leaving theoretical discussion aside, let us return to the reality of Bangladesh. The common citizens do not evaluate the prime minister, cabinet ministers, members of parliament, or senior government officials in isolation. Rather, it is the combined effect of their words, conduct, and decisions that shapes the public''s overall perception of the government.
In recent months, several remarks made by senior government officials have attracted public discussion and criticism. These may be isolated incidents. However, the political reality is that even a single careless comment by a person in a position of responsibility can affect the image of the entire government.

Political history bears this out. Major crises do not always begin with major events. At times, a single remark or a seemingly minor decision becomes the symbol of long-standing public frustration. When that happens, the reaction is no longer limited to the immediate incident; it is amplified by accumulated grievances and memories of the past.

The recent response from sections of the student community to a comment made by a senior government official serves as a reminder of this reality. Similarly, an administrative decision relating to local government was revised after facing widespread criticism. The government's swift correction sent a positive signal. Together, these two incidents make one point clear: a government's public image is shaped not only by the prime minister's conduct but also by the language, behaviour, and decisions of its other senior officials.

A similar pattern has recently been observed in neighbouring India. Following a controversial remark by India's Chief Justice, some students and young people began using the phrase "Cockroach Janata Party" as a satirical symbol of protest. Over time, however, the protest expanded beyond that single comment. It became associated with broader grievances, including examination paper leaks, weaknesses in the education system, unemployment, and demands for greater accountability, and evolved into an expression of wider youth discontent.

There is an important parallel between the developments in Bangladesh and India. In both cases, a single word or remark became the catalyst for students to express frustrations that had been building over a long period. Those frustrations then became connected to broader political and social demands. These experiences illustrate that the words of individuals holding high public office are rarely perceived as merely personal opinions. A single phrase can come to symbolise the government's broader attitude, while also providing an outlet for long-standing public dissatisfaction.

The same lesson can be drawn from the United Kingdom's "Partygate" controversy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the government urged the public to comply with lockdown restrictions. It later emerged that social gatherings had taken place at the Prime Minister's office during the same period. The revelation triggered a strong public backlash because people judge governments not only by what they say, but also by what they do.

In this context, the most important question is: to what extent is the Prime Minister’s personal political message becoming part of the culture of his entire government? Prime Minister Tarique Rahman spent many years in the United Kingdom, where he had the opportunity to closely observe a different political culture, the language of public leadership, and democratic practices. Many people see reflections of that experience in his recent conduct.

However, no government is ever run by one person alone. A prime minister works alongside the cabinet, political party, members of parliament, the administration, and numerous institutions. Therefore, the Prime Minister’s personal restraint and modest lifestyle will become part of the country’s political culture only when the same values are reflected in the conduct of others within the government.

This is where his greatest challenge lies. Will he limit the example of a new political culture to his own personal conduct, or will he turn it into a standard for the entire government? Leadership is not simply about setting a good example personally; it also means bringing others in the team into alignment with those values, correcting mistakes when they occur, and ensuring that everyone in government operates within a shared ethical and political framework.

In many democratic countries around the world, ministers and members of parliament receive regular training on leadership, ethics, media communication, and public service. The purpose is not to belittle anyone; rather, it is to ensure that people holding important positions remain aware of the political impact of their words and actions.

Bangladesh could also consider similar initiatives. Institutional training could be introduced for newly appointed ministers and officials entrusted with significant responsibilities, covering political conduct, parliamentary etiquette, public communication, media engagement, and crisis management.

One of the major lessons of history is that new governments are often challenged not primarily because of the opposition, but because of their own decisions, their own language, and the people around them. After coming to power, many governments assume that public support will remain unchanged for a long time. But reality is different. Public expectations change quickly, and when those expectations are not met, disappointment also emerges rapidly.

The younger generation of today, in particular, is not like previous generations. They receive information instantly, can organise quickly, and judge not only promises but also behaviour and outcomes. In recent years, developments in different countries around the world have shown that a small decision, a careless remark, or a failure to take ordinary people''s concerns seriously can sometimes become the starting point of major political movements. In modern politics, therefore, there is no such thing as a “small mistake.”

Bangladesh is also part of this changing reality. July created expectations among people not only for political change but also for a new standard of governance. Whether those expectations will be fulfilled is the biggest political test of the days ahead.

Perhaps this is why the Prime Minister’s greatest challenge is not how he will deal with the opposition. Rather, the bigger challenge is whether his government, administration, and political colleagues can truly embrace and reflect the message he is projecting. And so the question remains: will the change visible on the “front stage” also be reflected on the “backstage”?

* Mohammad Jalal Uddin Sikdar is a teacher and researcher, Department of Political Science and Sociology, North South University.
* The views expressed here are the author’s own.
* This article appeared in Prothom Alo print and online and has been translated by Ayesha Kabir for Prothom Alo English Online