When one thinks of Khaleda Zia, the image that naturally comes to mind is that of a resolute political leader—unyielding and a powerful voice against authoritarianism. From the anti-military movements to the struggles against subsequent waves of fascism, she became a symbol of democracy. Her composure and decorum were exceptional. The masses, inspired by her patriotism and nationalist vision, rewarded her with record electoral victories.
Yet another aspect of Khaleda Zia deserves attention: she was the architect of a long-term transformation. This transformation was the nation’s journey from a hunger- and famine-stricken, agriculture-dependent society toward export-led growth, labour migration, and industrialisation. This progress was not the result of dramatic announcements; it was the outcome of gradual, structural changes. She worked quietly, discreetly—not seeking praise or acclaim.
Leaders who do not speak of their own achievements often face harsh judgment from history. In patriarchal political systems, this harshness is even more pronounced for women. The same was true for Khaleda Zia. Behind the struggles of her political life lies perhaps her most enduring legacy: the quiet construction of Bangladesh’s economic modernisation.
Poverty reduction: Growth reaching the lowest strata of society
In 1991, Khaleda Zia formed the government for the first time in an extremely poor country, where over 56 per cent of the population lived below the poverty line. By the end of her first term in 1996, the poverty rate had declined to 53.1 per cent. In just five years, roughly 4–5 million people were lifted out of the cycle of poverty.
During her second term from 2001 to 2006, these changes deepened further. In just five years, 12–13 million people escaped the grip of poverty. Across both terms, 16–18 million lives were fundamentally transformed—a historic achievement. While China’s record in poverty reduction is widely known, Khaleda Zia’s success remains largely unspoken.
The impact of this poverty reduction goes beyond numbers. In a post-colonial country like Bangladesh, poverty is not only a lack of income—it reflects the relationship between the state and its citizens. Under Khaleda Zia’s leadership, the shift represented a fundamental change in state perspective: the state would not be omnipresent, but it would enable people to work, access markets, and move freely.
This approach was neither a copy of neo-liberal theory nor central planning; it was a pragmatic political-economic strategy born from Bangladesh’s realities. She understood the limits of the state, and she also knew which doors, when opened, would allow society to become self-driven. As a result, growth during her tenure did not remain confined to the upper strata; investment and employment expansion ensured that the underprivileged shared in the benefits of development.
From jute memories to an industrial economy
A strong export base is crucial for economic modernisation. Khaleda Zia inherited an economy haunted by the decline of the jute industry. Under her leadership, the ready-made garment (RMG) sector gradually became the central pillar connecting Bangladesh to the global economy.
During her first term, RMG exports nearly tripled, and the sector’s share in total exports rose from 51 per cent to 65 per cent. In her second term, exports further increased to over 60 per cent. Even when the Multi-Fiber Arrangement (MFA) ended, raising fears of collapse in the garment sector, the industry survived. By 2006, ready-made garments accounted for nearly 75 per cent of total exports, laying the foundation for other industries.
The most profound social impact of this industry was the entry of women into the labour market. Millions of rural women, for the first time, earned cash income in the formal sector. Power dynamics within families, villages, and society began to shift. This was not the result of a women’s development project—it was a deep social outcome of structural economic change.
Khaleda Zia’s least recognised yet most enduring contribution was building the foundation of a migrant labour economy. In 1991, remittance inflows were only $764 million. By 1996, the figure surpassed $1.2 billion, breaking the billion-dollar mark. During 2001–2006, remittances rose to $4.8 billion. In just five years, the surge in labour migration to Gulf countries and Southeast Asia increased remittance inflows by nearly 150 per cent.
Remittance: An invisible welfare state for rural Bangladesh
Remittance income has played the role of an invisible welfare state in rural Bangladesh. It fuels consumption, housing, education, and small-scale investment. The foundation of today’s foreign currency reserves in Bangladesh was laid during this period. Even when a failing government abandoned the economy at the brink of collapse, remittance income continued to supply oxygen to the economy.
In 1990–91, agriculture accounted for 30 per cent of GDP and industry 21 per cent. By 2006, industry’s share had risen to 27 per cent while agriculture fell to 20 per cent. For the first time in history, industry surpassed agriculture as the driving force of growth.
This transformation did not increase hunger. Dependence on food aid, historically entrenched, declined. Rice production increased, strengthening food security. Industry grew, and simultaneous increases in Boro rice production allowed Bangladesh to achieve near self-sufficiency in grain production. This balance was not accidental; it was the fruit of quiet but carefully planned structural changes.
State, tragedy, and moral truth
During Khaleda Zia’s rule, memories of military interventions were still fresh, democracy was fragile, and international donors exerted strong pressure. Achieving development under these circumstances was not merely an economic decision—it was a political risk. She created opportunities for people, labour, and capital to move freely, prioritizing human and economic agency over strict control.
Khaleda Zia cannot be confined to the realm of personal grief. She will resonate within the political subconscious of the state. A state that effectively imprisons its citizens and slowly pushes them toward death suffers from a profound moral and political sickness. Khaleda Zia’s passing is not merely the tragedy of an individual; it is the tragedy of the state—a state in which fascist authority had inflicted oppression upon her.
Khaleda Zia did not surrender to tyranny. Confronting fascist authority, suppression of speech, and violence, she became a symbol of resistance. Even as this resistance gradually became quieter and more symbolic, it always inspired hope. That quiet resistance ultimately sowed the seeds of the 2024 mass uprising. As progressive Urdu poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz wrote:
“I started the journey alone toward the destination;
One by one, others joined, and in the end, it became a procession.”
Khaleda Zia is not merely a memory. She is a permanent beacon of light etched into the map of Bangladesh’s future hope.
#Dr. Rashed Al Mahmud Titumir is Professor, Development Studies Department, University of Dhaka.
#Opinions are the author’s own