Across the country, the deep grief and unprecedented outpouring of emotion over the passing of Begum Khaleda Zia is being felt by many, and I too share in it. The expressions of feeling seen at her funeral, on people’s faces, and in public spaces are not merely grief over a death. They also represent the end of an era and an emotional reflection on an entire political life. I believe that at this moment, alongside the emotion, a comprehensive and measured assessment of her life is also a proper responsibility.
Undoubtedly, a major reason for this extraordinary sentiment is her passing. But alongside that, people are also reflecting on her overall life and contribution. Khaleda Zia did not enter politics with any conventional preparation for the role she eventually assumed. She had little formal or institutional political education, and her rise was not through conventional political pathways in public life. Her entry into the public sphere was largely due to inheriting responsibilities, yet that reality is not the whole truth.
She is often labeled as a housewife, but that term is not accurate for her. By “housewife,” we generally mean someone with no public engagement—but Khaleda Zia was not like that. She was the spouse of Ziaur Rahman and personally experienced the hardships of the 1971 Liberation War period. She witnessed the entire context of the war closely, including the turmoil of 1975, the uncertain period around 7 November, and the ambiguity about the state’s direction. She became a widow after the tragic assassination of President Zia in 1981. These experiences gave her an intimate understanding of the state and politics.
Even so, her rise to political and state leadership was neither easy nor smooth. No one called her to power or installed her; rather, it was her uncompromising stance during the pro-democracy movement against military ruler Ershad that first brought her into political, and later state, leadership. This was her own achievement. While her responsibility began as an inheritance, establishing it firmly in the public sphere is proof of her personal capability.
A key aspect of assessing Begum Khaleda Zia comprehensively is that she managed to establish herself in political and state leadership without prior institutional political preparation. This must be recognised as her personal accomplishment, which explains the strong position she occupied in the public consciousness.
Another aspect is the personal tragedy she faced throughout her life. The hardships of 1971, her husband’s assassination, imprisonment and persecution during anti-dictatorship movements, and the injustices she endured over the past fifteen years have created deep public empathy. In our society, there is a natural tendency to feel compassion for those who suffer injustice, and Khaleda Zia received that sympathy because the difficulties imposed on her were perceived by many as unjust.
In evaluating her as a state leader, I want to highlight three particular aspects. First, her stance against hegemony. Especially regarding regional dominance, her position was clear, firm, and consistent. This was not strategic opportunism or self-interest; she consistently presented her stance in public with integrity, prioritising Bangladesh’s national interest.
This consistency is an important achievement of her state leadership.
Second, her role in economic transformation. While the development of Bangladesh’s private sector and market economy began in the 1970s and 1980s, it gained real momentum in the first half of the 1990s—during her tenure. The foundations for private banking, private universities, and private sector development were institutionalised under her leadership.
Importantly, she never claimed sole credit, nor did she present herself as an expert in public. Instead, she emphasised consultative and collective decision-making processes, respecting and valuing ministers like Saifur Rahman. In contrast to the recent trend of unilateral and overly authoritarian decision-making, her era’s collegial decision-making set a positive example.
Thirdly, her contribution to women’s empowerment. She was likely sensitive to this issue due to her own life experiences. In the first half of the 1990s, initiatives such as the Girls’ Stipend Programme, Food for Education, and conditional cash transfers played a significant role in empowering women. Later, international organisations, including the World Bank, recognised these programmes as innovative social safety initiatives.
Khaleda Zia also made a distinct contribution to political culture. Despite facing immense hardships, provocation, and pressure, she generally remained reserved in speech. She consciously kept herself away from sarcasm and personal attacks. Remaining composed and dignified even under extreme pressure—“grace under pressure”—is rare in our political culture, and this is a trait she exemplified.
Begum Khaleda Zia maintained the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) in a cohesive state through her leadership and organisational structure. However, evaluating her solely from a party perspective would be incomplete. Her individual achievements in political and state leadership, her moral stance, her decision-making style, and her restrained behaviour in political life offer important lessons for the future political leadership of Bangladesh. After her passing, alongside our emotions, we should also focus on this comprehensive assessment and draw the necessary lessons from it.
#Hossain Zillur Rahman is former adviser, caretaker government.