Historical legacies continue to shape contemporary political behaviour and social dynamics, as many aspects of present-day society are rooted in pivotal moments from the past. Therefore, understanding current political developments requires attention to their historical foundations. However, historical events are not interpreted uniformly; different groups often remember and understand the past in ways shaped by their political identities, social movements, and experiences. As a result, historical narratives can influence voting behavior and political preferences.
In an era of rising global populism, political leaders frequently draw on selective interpretations of history to shape public opinion and mobilise electoral support. Examples such as references to the Viking Age in Nordic political discourse, the enduring legacy of slavery in the US South, and the long-term effects of colonialism in regions such as the Middle East and Africa illustrate how historical experiences continue to influence contemporary political attitudes, conflicts, and patterns of political stability.
South Asia also follows this pattern, in which historical legacies such as anticolonial movements shape the ideological patterns of political parties, which in turn shape their supporters’ voting behavior. Along with this pattern, the colonial creation of a divide-and-rule policy is still alive.
Previous communal riots are often referenced and politically framed by party leaders to mobilise electoral support. Critics argue that some leaders in the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) have invoked past communal violence and emphasized anti-Muslim narratives to consolidate Hindu voter support. For example, political debates surrounding the 2002 Gujarat riots have frequently appeared in electoral rhetoric and media discourse, where references to communal tensions were used to mobilise identity-based political support. Similarly, disputes linked to the Babri Masjid demolition have been repeatedly invoked in political campaigns to reinforce religious polarisation and influence voting behavior.
In Bangladesh, the 1971 Liberation War remains the most significant event shaping political party ideologies. Some parties even adopt anti-liberation rhetoric to appeal to certain voter bases. The war’s legacy continued to influence the 2026 elections, serving as a central element of national identity and a symbol of legitimacy and patriotism. Analysts noted that parties perceived as linked to anti-liberation forces faced political setbacks, as voters rejected candidates seen as undermining the independence narrative. This dynamic helped the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) secure victory by positioning itself as aligned with liberation ideals while opposing extremist alternatives.
In the 12 February election, voters with ideological ties to the Liberation War cast their ballots for BNP not only because of the party’s election manifesto, but also out of concern that if JI were in power, the values and legacy established in 1971 could be undermined
Debates over historical memory, including how the war is commemorated or politicised, further shaped party strategies and public sentiment, with parties either emphasising their commitment to the values of 1971 or facing criticism for failing to do so.
In the lead-up to the 2026 parliamentary elections, the BNP increasingly highlighted the Liberation War of 1971 in its campaigns, focusing on the controversial role of Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) during that period. Historically, BNP had allied with JI in multiple elections, forming coalition governments despite JI’s opposition to Bangladesh’s independence. However, the absence of the Awami League in this election transformed JI into BNP’s main rival, prompting BNP to reframe historical narratives for electoral advantage.
On 22 January 2026, BNP chairman Tarique Rahman addressed a rally in Sylhet, emphasising JI’s opposition to the Liberation War: “During the fight to free our motherland, many roles were evident. History cannot be erased; people saw how some stood against the country.”
Similar statements were echoed by other top BNP leaders. On 28 January, BNP secretary general Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir further criticised JI, saying, “This party opposed our war of independence and did not believe in Bangladesh’s freedom. Could such people be trusted with running the country?”
BNP leaders framed their critique as a principled defence of the Liberation War and freedom fighters, while also acknowledging that the party’s previous alliances with JI had been strategic and electoral, not endorsements of Jamaat’s controversial history. BNP leaders explained that the earlier coalition had been purely a “strategic election partnership” and did not absolve JI of its historical transgressions.
Analysts noted that this approach had been largely tactical, aimed at capturing the Liberation War-sensitive voter base that might otherwise have leaned toward Awami League supporters. By emphasising JI’s historical opposition to independence, BNP sought to portray itself as a defender of the Liberation War, positioning JI as the ideological and moral antagonist in the absence of the Awami League.
On the other hand, the 1971 period remained a dark chapter in JI’s history, one that continued to haunt the party. Despite repeated attempts, they were never able to erase this legacy. Following the 5 August uprising, JI has attempted to present various narratives, such as 2024 vs. 1971, July Warriors vs. Freedom Fighters, the Spirit of July vs. the Spirit of the Liberation War, and Second Independence vs. Independence. The party chief’s statement claiming that Colonel Oli’s revolt during the Liberation War was the “first revolt” drew widespread criticism on social media. However, these narratives failed to gain popular acceptance among the people of Bangladesh.
Subsequently, the results showed that those who identified strongly with the 1971 Liberation War tended to support the BNP, ultimately contributing to its electoral victory. Commentators observed that in the 12 February election, voters with ideological ties to the Liberation War cast their ballots for BNP not only because of the party’s election manifesto, but also out of concern that if JI were in power, the values and legacy established in 1971 could be undermined.
The election ultimately demonstrated that when political actors actively engage with historical memory, they can shape public perception and influence voting behavior. Voters with a strong attachment to the Liberation War supported parties perceived as defending its legacy, while rejecting those associated with anti-liberation forces.
* Md. Al-Amin is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Barishal, Bangladesh
* The views expressed here are the author's own