Bangladesh’s civil society must face the failures of the past

Bangladesh’s political landscape has been dominated by the Awami League for the past fifteen years. Under her long rule, the government faced accusations of corruption, election manipulation and authoritarianism. The ruling party had direct responsibility for much of this, but I believe civil society also played a role. Intellectuals, academics, journalists and human rights defenders often did not challenge the government effectively enough. Their passivity also caused democratic values ​​to erode.

Civil society is intended to hold government accountable. In Bangladesh, some individuals expressed outrage, but civil society remained collectively passive on controversial issues. A clear example of this was the forced resignation of Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha in 2017. His ruling on executive power was important for judicial independence, but instead of showing solidarity, many remained silent and some even distanced themselves. Although there were some exceptions, the general passivity of civil society left executive interference unchecked and set a dangerous precedent.

Another key event was the 2018 general elections. Allegations of voter suppression and irregularities surfaced, but civil society failed to respond with the necessary force. Organizations like Shushashoner Jonno Nagorik (Shujan) raised concerns about ballot fraud and voter intimidation, but these warnings were largely ignored. Most public figures avoided addressing these issues, weakening the push for meaningful electoral reforms. Their reluctance contributed to a sense of impunity surrounding the elections, further damaging democratic norms.

Human rights violations also increased during this period, including an increase in extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. The abusers often targeted political mavericks, journalists and activists. A gruesome example was the 2018 murder of Ekramul Haque, a local political figure who was shot dead during an anti-drug operation. Chilling audio recordings of his final moments, in which he and his family pleaded with officers, circulated on social media, but civil society remained silent. International organizations such as Human Rights Watch condemned the act, but many domestic voices hesitated to speak out. This failure to address human rights abuses contributed to a climate of fear that silenced many who would otherwise have challenged the government.

The Digital Security Act (DSA) targeted journalists and activists. This reflected the lack of sustained action from civil society. Shafiqul Islam Kajol, a journalist who reported on politically sensitive issues, was kidnapped in 2020. Although his case received some media attention, only a few organizations, such as Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK), spoke out. However, most intellectuals were not concerned with the broader implications of the law that led to its disappearance. This lack of sustained advocacy has allowed the DSA to remain a powerful tool for silencing dissent. Without continued pressure from civil society, the law continued to be used to suppress freedom of expression.

The abusers often targeted political mavericks, journalists and activists. A gruesome example was the 2018 murder of Ekramul Haque, a local political figure who was shot dead during an anti-drug operation. Chilling audio recordings of his final moments, in which he and his family pleaded with officers, circulated on social media, but civil society remained silent. International organizations such as Human Rights Watch condemned the act, but many domestic voices hesitated to speak out.

The student-led quota reforms and road safety movements in 2018 further illustrated the passivity of civil society. Students took to the streets demanding transparency and accountability, but were met with violent action from the student wing of the ruling party, the Chhatra League. The repression, especially the attacks on students at the University of Dhaka, shocked the nation. But some academics, who could have supported the students, remained on the sidelines or stigmatized the protesters. Some professors privately sympathized, but the lack of collective action from the academic community, as seen in this year’s movement, reflected a broader reluctance to challenge the government directly.

A particularly tragic case was the 2019 murder of Abrar Fahad, a BUET student who was beaten to death for criticizing government policies online. While the killing sparked outrage, most university officials and intellectuals remained silent on the broader issue of political violence on campuses. This shows how deeply the culture of violence and fear had penetrated even the country’s educational institutions. Many university authorities refused to take a clear stand instead of defending free speech and debate, allowing the dangerous status quo to persist.

Corruption during the Awami League’s tenure provided another opportunity for civil society to demand greater accountability from the government, but those moments passed without sustained action. The 2012 Padma Bridge corruption scandal, which led to the World Bank withdrawing its funding, was an opportunity to push for transparency. Although the case was never fully proven in court, it raised concerns about corruption in large-scale government projects. But instead of pushing for government accountability, many intellectuals and commentators echoed the government’s rhetoric of national pride. By allowing the issue to be framed as an attack on the country’s dignity rather than a call for oversight, civil society missed an important opportunity to effect meaningful change.

The 2015 BASIC Bank scandal, in which over Tk 4,500 crore was embezzled through fraudulent loans, further exposed the inaction of civil society. Sheikh Abdul Hye Bacchu, the bank’s chairman, was widely suspected of involvement, but his connections to the ruling party shielded him from serious consequences. Civil society could have put pressure on the government to take action, but once again the issue disappeared from public debate, no significant reforms followed, and corruption continued to flourish.

These examples show that civil society has not effectively fulfilled its role as a watchdog for the people. The failure to speak out against judicial interference, human rights abuses, electoral fraud and corruption has contributed to the government’s consolidation of power. Individual voices tried to resist, but broader civil society often remained silent. This silence allowed the ruling party to act with minimal resistance.

Restoring the credibility of civil society will require recognizing these past failures and committing to holding the government accountable, regardless of who is in power. An acknowledgment of its failure would not be merely a symbolic gesture; it is a necessary step toward restoring public trust. Civil society must reclaim its role in defending democratic principles, human rights and transparency. Only by confronting her shortcomings can she regain the moral authority needed to challenge the government and truly stand up for the people. The path to accountability begins with a simple recognition: civil society has failed where it should have succeeded, and must now make amends.

Dr. Kazi ASM Nurul Huda is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Dhaka.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

To follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentary and analysis from experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our submission guidelines.