Elections have been held in Bangladesh, the party she helped build with her own hands (although the BNP was founded by Ziaur Rahman, it truly took shape as a full-fledged political party under Khaleda Zia’s leadership) has returned to power after a long time. We will probably always regret not having witnessed a scene in which Khaleda Zia was present to watch the oath-taking ceremony of that government. In truth, she had the greatest right to see that moment.
In the struggle against Sheikh Hasina, the most prominent name was Khaleda Zia. I wrote earlier in a column in Prothom Alo that Sheikh Hasina could not remain in power for much longer, as Cambodia’s Prime Minister Hun Sen did, because despite her best efforts she failed to break the BNP—something Hun Sen had managed to do in his country. This was possible, on the one hand, because Tarique Rahman provided strong leadership to the party even from abroad, and on the other, because of the uncompromising struggle of Khaleda Zia, who, despite immense pressure and inducements, chose not to leave the country.
Naturally, both print and electronic media are now discussing various aspects of Khaleda Zia’s politics and personality. One particular trait of her character is extremely important for Bangladesh in the years ahead.
Both as the leader of her family and of the political party she built, and also in her personal life, there was hardly any form of persecution that she did not suffer at the hands of Sheikh Hasina. After Sheikh Hasina’s fall, if Khaleda Zia had expressed her justified anger toward her, people would have readily accepted it. Yet history will record that from 5 August 2024, until her death, she did not express resentment even once—not even in mild terms.
Not only during this period, but even before she was imprisoned, she never responded to the unspeakable lies and slander directed at her by Sheikh Hasina herself and members of her party. Throughout her political life, she set a remarkable example of civility, courtesy, and restrained speech. Had she remained alive and active, she would undoubtedly have continued this approach in the future as well.
Khaleda Zia—and her son Tarique Rahman—demonstrated this conduct at a time when right-wing populist politics is on the rise worldwide. Populist and demagogic leaders are increasingly using angry rhetoric to incite public resentment, hatred, and division. This global trend has reached Bangladesh as well. Moreover, after living under authoritarian rule for a long time, our patience and tolerance are at a dangerously low point, making the risks even greater.
When Begum Khaleda Zia was admitted to hospital in critical condition during this phase, the details of her illness that emerged created serious doubts about her recovery. From then on, it felt as though if she were to pass away, it would be a profound loss for all of us. From the later years of her life until its very end, she endured an extremely painful and difficult existence. Yet before her departure, she lived to see that although she was the leader of a political party, she had become a guardian figure for people of all political persuasions. Even after her death, messages from Sheikh Hasina—whose government subjected Khaleda Zia to unjust persecution—and from her son Sajeeb Wazed Joy showed that they too could not deny the reality of her guardianship. Khaleda Zia’s role as a guardian was something the country needed most urgently at this moment.
After the fall of governments in the face of mass uprising, many expressed disappointment about Bangladesh when they saw how quickly stability returned to Sri Lanka and Nepal. However, comparing Bangladesh with these two countries is misguided. Neither Sri Lanka nor Nepal had been under long-term authoritarian rule; the governments that fell in the face of mass movements they had been elected through free and fair elections. In such countries, state institutions tend to remain relatively functional. By contrast, prolonged authoritarian rule causes a country’s institutions to collapse, as authoritarian governments deliberately weaken institutions to secure their hold on power.
In such a context, uncertainty about post-authoritarian stability is inevitable. Even after democratic elections, this risk can persist—as seen in Tunisia and Egypt following the Arab Spring.
Bangladesh is now moving toward an election. It is hoped that a democratic government will be formed through a credible and acceptable election. Yet, judging from the experiences of other countries and the existing rivalries and conflicts among Bangladesh’s political parties, there are valid reasons to believe that challenges to stability may persist even in the post-election period. It was in such circumstances that Begum Khaleda Zia could have played an important role as a guardian figure. Whether before or after the election, in moments of severe conflict or confrontation, she could have used her influence over political parties and other centeres of power to help ease tensions. For this reason, in our own interest, it felt as though we needed her to remain with us a little longer. But that was not to be.
Now, after Begum Khaleda Zia’s death, as people from all walks of life pay tribute to her and speak of learning from her example, one hopes that the BNP and other political parties— even if they cannot fully emulate her level of nonviolence in resolving internal disputes—will at least refrain from crossing a line that fuels conflict and undermines the country’s stability.
Among the many adjectives that may be used to assess Begum Khaleda Zia, the foremost is likely her lifelong struggle for liberal, centrist democracy. It is painful that she could not witness Bangladesh’s democratic transition and progress through a free, fair, and acceptable election. Yet we must strive to practice the kind of refined, civil political conduct that she exemplified, so that we can nurture democracy in its true sense rather than jeopardise the transition to it. If Bangladesh is to develop as a genuinely democratic state, we must stand firmly against the global trend of right-wing, identity-based, populist politics—whose influence is also increasingly visible in Bangladesh.
Begum Khaleda Zia departed this world physically amid an extraordinary outpouring of respect and affection; yet her life and work will never fade away. The sea of people that filled the funeral site—spreading far beyond the designated area, even as countless others were surely unable to attend despite their wishes—demonstrated the place she held in people’s hearts. We can pay true tribute to Begum Khaleda Zia only by internalising her ideals and lessons in our own lives.
*Zahed Ur Rahman is a university teacher and political analyst
#The views expressed are the author’s own.