Nine months after the historic mass uprising of July-August, it has become increasingly urgent to revisit and focus attention on the understanding of the mandate for change, as well as on the core aspirations of every citizen who sought transformation.
When the current government assumed office, Bangladesh was yearning to emerge from a deep political and moral vacuum. The concentration of power under a fallen autocracy, criminalised politics, the collapse of law and order, rampant economic plundering, and the erosion of policy sovereignty had all provoked widespread public anger. Out of that frustration arose a powerful determination for sweeping social and political change. Students and citizens, professionals, political parties, and even the armed forces played significant roles in that collective movement. From this united resolve, a new mandate emerged—born from a bloody yearning for liberation.
The concept of a "mandate" is inherently dependent on the government’s responsible and effective actions. But the true custodian of any mandate is the "will of the people" and "collective public psychology." Ignoring this truth leads to serious consequences—most notably, a growing divide between the government and the citizenry.
This mandate stands on three foundational pillars: A transition toward a transparent democratic system; structural and institutional reforms; and the rebuilding of public trust through an efficient and impartial administration. This was never codified in a written document. Rather, it was a political consensus formed through a shared national understanding—what we might call the foundation of a national unity.
Regrettably, the interpretation of this mandate is now fragmented. Different actors present it differently, undermining the spirit of unity it was meant to uphold. No single entity can claim exclusive ownership of this mandate. It arose from the collective voice of the people—a convergence of political parties, student groups, and the armed forces pledging to fulfill public aspirations.
One of the central components of the mandate was structural and institutional reform—not just bureaucratic tinkering, but a historic opportunity to reconstruct the foundations of democracy. Unfortunately, this reform agenda has now become entangled in confusion. Although the government has initiated a bureaucratic framework through commissions, white papers, task forces, and consultation meetings, tangible progress on the ground remains absent. The term "reform" is widely used, yet there is deep uncertainty about its actual form, priorities, and implementation. Efforts to implement reforms appear indecisive and reflect a clear lack of competence. There's also no visible organic structure linking reform projects with the public sphere, nor is there strong interaction with popular aspirations.
In political reform, the focus has narrowed to just a few issues: balancing the powers of the prime minister, making parliament more effective, and pursuing parliamentary reform. However, the autocratic regime of the past decade and a half was built on four pillars: an excessively empowered Prime Minister; a constituency-based system of MP-dominated local governance ("MP rule"); the subjugation of local government under the central authority; and the collapse of the chain of command in the police and civil administration to serve autocratic ends. Reform discourse barely touches the latter three issues.
Special attention must be given to administrative reform. The recommendations made for reforming the police and civil service lack practical focus—despite the fact that it is at this operational level where citizens most directly interact with the state. This is also where the public has endured the most painful experiences of authoritarian rule. When a superintendent of police bypasses their superiors under instructions from the centre, or a primary school teacher is dragged out at dawn for participating in a protest, the need for reform at this level becomes urgent. If reform does not penetrate to these levels, then structural change will remain ineffective.
There is also a crisis around the reform implementation strategy. Though multiple commissions have submitted reports, there is still no clarity on which reforms the government intends to prioritise. Some progress could have been made through political dialogue and administrative action. But political polarisation and the inability to make timely decisions have turned reform into a mystical or unreachable process in the public eye.
Furthermore, "consensus" around reform has become an overused term, while the actual process of building that consensus has been made slow, bureaucratic, and incomplete. As a result, the reform agenda is losing credibility and public interest is steadily declining.
This raises a pressing question: Is the reform discussion becoming just a sideshow? How will the people know that reforms are being carried out in line with their aspirations? People want to see real change reflected in their daily experiences—in administration, education, employment, and access to justice. The breakdown in the rhythm of reform is now a major pillar of today’s crisis.
In addition to confusion over reform and the mandate, another crisis looms. The public—especially the youth—joined the movement for change based on a clear conviction. They shed blood and faced danger with the hope that society would transform, the state would listen to their voices, and doors of opportunity would open. But to what extent have those hopes been fulfilled?
The aspirations voiced for the youth have been replaced by disregard for their hardships. We said, "Youth is our strength." But we no longer speak of their struggles with unemployment, insecurity, economic pressure, and a social environment that leaves them uninspired. The women who stood as partners in this movement are now facing uncertainty. Their rightful demands are being sidelined. A lack of job opportunities, declining quality in education, and the absence of a clear vision for the future have bred a deep sense of disillusionment among young people. They understand that change does not come overnight—but they want to see signs that change is on the horizon, tomorrow or the day after. Sadly, that promise is now nowhere to be found.
Meanwhile, the government’s language and attitude reflect a self-absorbed, power-centric stance, which risks further aggravating the crisis.
At the same time, entrenched group interests are actively working to undermine and confuse the reform process. There is a noticeable lack of political and administrative initiative to rein in these vested interests. Instead of the expected institutional framework of governance, bureaucratic inertia seems to prevail—resulting not in alleviation of public suffering but in a growing sense of narrowness and closure.
In areas like banking regulation and anti-corruption efforts, the government has certainly made some macroeconomic gains. However, poverty is on the rise. According to World Bank data, a significant number of people have newly fallen below the poverty line. Inflation remains at a risky level, while wages are not increasing. If this reality leads to public disinterest in assessing the government’s progress, it should not be dismissed as ordinary—it signifies a deeper sense of emotional and civic detachment.
The resurgence of authoritarian tendencies, the renewed erosion of policy sovereignty, the grinding of unethical group-based power structures, the derailment of Bangladesh’s envisioned future, and the entrenchment of an inhumane and ineffective state apparatus—none of these are acceptable to an awakened citizenry. It is imperative for those in positions of power to recognise and respond to this broad-based public conviction. More than recognition, it is equally important to build trust and translate that into effective action.
*Dr. Hossain Zillur Rahman is an economist and former adviser to the caretaker government