In discussions about the role of opposition parties—and, by extension, ruling parties—in protecting and consolidating democracy, we often avoid a fundamental question: What kind of democracy do we actually want to establish?
Democracy can take many forms. Free and fair elections mark only the beginning of a country's democratic journey. But even free and fair elections can produce two very different outcomes. On the one hand, power may become concentrated in the hands of a single party or individual, giving rise to a ‘tyranny of the majority’. On the other, a shift in the balance of power may produce an ‘aristocracy of the elite’, marginalising ordinary people. The fundamental challenge of democracy is to find the right balance between these two extremes. The ultimate goal is to ensure that the genuine voices and concerns of citizens are reflected in policymaking through their elected representatives. Therefore, what constitutes the ‘ideal’ role of an opposition party in a democracy depends on the kind of democratic framework we want to establish in the state.
For many in Bangladesh, the concept of democracy is extremely narrow. A country is considered ‘democratic’ as long as power changes hands through free and fair elections every five years. This minimalist definition of democracy cannot be dismissed as entirely wrong. However, if our attention remains focused solely on election day, expecting the opposition to play a constructive role in the intervening period becomes meaningless.
Under such an arrangement, elections may take place every five years, but in the period between two elections, all power remains concentrated in the hands of the ruling party. State institutions lose their independence, while citizens' role is reduced to casting their votes. Because of these structural weaknesses, the opposition has no meaningful opportunity to hold the executive accountable during the five-year term. Yet, every five years, it enters the race to form a government wielding enormous power.
Responsible behaviour cannot reasonably be expected from opposition parties within such an institutional framework.
By contrast, if we view democracy as a continuous process in which public policies are shaped through political dialogue and compromise, where no single actor can exercise absolute dominance and the executive is subject to rigorous oversight to prevent the abuse of power, opportunities emerge for the opposition to play an effective role.
Essentially, what we need is a representative liberal democracy that moves politics away from the ‘winner-takes-all’ principle towards a ‘something to win, something to lose’ approach.
However, no ruling party willingly agrees to limit its own power. Therefore, the opposition's primary responsibility should be to make the case for building such a political framework, forge alliances with civil society and put pressure on the government to undertake structural reforms.
Representative liberal democracy, however, has a major limitation of its own. It often becomes excessively dependent on elite bargaining and narrows the scope for ordinary people to directly influence policymaking.
In the name of allowing representatives to rise above narrow, constituency-based demands and make independent decisions in the national interest, citizens' opinions are often disregarded in practice.
This limitation has given rise to the idea of ‘participatory democracy’, which prioritises direct public involvement in decision-making. This approach can be transformative, with major policy decisions being made through citizens' assemblies or regular referendums. Alternatively, it can take the form of an effective consultative system through which citizens can easily communicate their demands to elected representatives.
Such participatory arrangements must, of course, be protected by constitutional safeguards to ensure that the rights of minorities are not undermined by the preferences of the majority. If we want to build a vibrant democracy of this kind, opposition parties must move closer to ordinary people.
These three forms of democracy—electoral, liberal-institutional and participatory—are not mutually exclusive. If free and fair elections are the foundation, the liberal-institutional framework is the shield against the abuse of power, while participatory mechanisms provide ordinary people with the means to exercise power.
Our greatest challenge is to bring these three dimensions together. The more we move beyond a narrowly ‘election-centric’ understanding of democracy towards involving citizens in policymaking, the more important the role of opposition parties becomes.
In the present context of Bangladesh, the opposition's role is particularly sensitive and urgent. When the ruling party is unwilling to rebuild democratic institutions, intolerant of criticism, busy politicising the bureaucracy, blurring the distinction between the party and the government, and failing to keep its own activists under control, it would be misguided to expect the ruling party to initiate reforms on its own. In the face of authoritarian tendencies, opposition parties must build a strong resistance by combining street mobilisation with civil society initiatives and develop a blueprint for an alternative political order to rein in the abuse of power.
The question is whether opposition parties in Bangladesh are fulfilling this responsibility under the present circumstances.
Unfortunately, opposition politics remains centred on confrontation and distant from citizen-oriented thinking. To establish progressive and constructive opposition politics, these parties need to focus on several specific priorities.
First, rather than limiting themselves to criticising government actions, opposition parties must clearly explain to the public the rationale for bringing about sustainable political and institutional reforms. They need to build a counter-reformist political bloc involving civil society and institutional stakeholders to challenge the ruling elite coalition.
Second, the traditional programmes of ‘long marches’ and displays of political strength have now reached the limits of their effectiveness.
Instead of merely gathering their own supporters, opposition parties must reach out to people from all walks of life. They must explain in clear and accessible language how everyday crises—including rising prices, unemployment, food insecurity and corruption—are products of the existing system of governance. Without this tireless and patient engagement, winning public trust will be impossible.
Third, opposition parties must have a clear vision for establishing an equitable society. Even if a party operates within a democratic framework, relying on populism, religious extremism or discriminatory attitudes will ultimately lead to a tyranny of the majority. Opposition parties must explicitly pledge to build a liberal political culture that protects the rights of every citizen, regardless of religion, ethnicity or gender identity, and respects differing opinions. No state can be a liberal democracy without protecting minority rights.
How successful are Bangladesh's current opposition parties in meeting these expectations?
Consider Jamaat-e-Islami, the country's largest opposition political force. The party appears more comfortable with confrontation and emotion-driven politics than with political compromise or objective reform proposals. Although it uses the word ‘reform’ as a politically appealing slogan, it simply avoids proposals that do not align with its ideology, such as women's political empowerment. Instead of presenting constructive alternative policies, it continues to rely on strategies dating back to the 1990s.
At the same time, the kind of society Jamaat envisions is fundamentally at odds with the idea of a liberal democratic state. Although the party claims to have substantial female leadership within its ranks, it remains silent on nominating women candidates in elections. It has failed miserably to win the confidence of religious and political minorities.
Historically, the party has struggled to accept the reality that Bangladesh, despite having a Muslim majority, is fundamentally a universal democratic republic in which the majority cannot impose its views by force. As a matter of political opportunism, it is eager to deepen cultural divisions in society and ride the wave of right-wing populism. Consequently, its vision for change is by no means inclusive.
The position of the relatively young National Citizen Party (NCP), by contrast, is somewhat different. It has a genuine commitment to institutional reforms, and its young lawmakers are playing reasoned and constructive roles in parliament. They are also presenting alternative policy frameworks.
However, the party is paying very little attention to engaging with citizens or connecting its reform agenda with their everyday needs. It is trying to win an impossible battle without first mobilising the public.
Moreover, the NCP appears to be facing a clear ‘Hamletian dilemma’. It finds itself caught between its stated commitment to pluralism, individual freedom and equal rights for all citizens on the one hand, and political pressure to appease conservative majority sentiment on the other.
Although the party publicly pledges to protect women's rights and Bangladesh's diverse cultural heritage, it often fails to stand firm on its policy positions and quickly opts for compromise. Like Shakespeare's Hamlet, the NCP moves towards taking a principled position but becomes hesitant when political courage is required to defend it. Its alliance with Jamaat has also undermined its credibility regarding its commitment to building an inclusive society.
The NCP suffers from another problem as well. Some of its leaders have not only embraced populist rhetoric but have also become involved in the kind of mudslinging politics characterised by personal insults, derogatory name-calling and the spread of conspiracy theories.
Although some NCP leaders have refused to take responsibility for this conduct by their colleagues, the party has yet to take any formal action against those involved. Such politics deepens divisions in society and creates a harmful ‘us versus them’ mentality. This is deeply concerning for the democratic future of Bangladesh.
As for other political forces outside parliament, left-wing parties suffer from a severe lack of organisational capacity; the ideology of far-right parties is fundamentally incompatible with liberal democracy; and although emerging youth-led political platforms demonstrate good intentions and embrace modern values, they still have a long way to go before establishing themselves as viable political forces.
The true strength of an opposition party in a country does not depend solely on its ability to bring down a government or its chances of winning an election. It is measured by its commitment to building institutions, expanding citizen participation and having the moral courage to defend the truth and protect the rights of others, even when doing so is unpopular.
Bangladesh needs an opposition politics that rises above the struggle for power and guarantees accountability, good governance and the establishment of a tolerant society. Without such an opposition, ‘democracy’ will remain nothing more than a ritual performed on election day, while the dream of genuine democratic governance will remain elusive.