By Professor Dr. Sheikh Akram Ali
Politics, at its best, is often described as the art of translating collective aspirations into workable reality. Stripped of slogans and rivalry, it is supposed to serve a simple purpose: to organise society in a way that improves the lives of its people and gives direction to a shared future. Yet in practice it is rarely so clean. It moves between ideals and interests, between promises of welfare and the pressure of power. The tension between these two impulses has defined much of modern political history in South Asia, particularly in the long and complex journey from colonial rule to state formation and beyond.
The idea that politics should remain welfare-oriented, anchored in integrity and public service, is not new. It runs through the earliest debates about representative government in British India and continues to echo in contemporary democratic discourse. Politics, in its constructive form, is not only about competing for authority; it is also about shaping identity, building institutions and giving structure to national life. It becomes both the architect and the ongoing caretaker of the state.
The formalisation of politics in British India is often traced to the formation of the Indian National Congress in 1885. It emerged as a platform seeking greater political voice within the colonial framework. Yet political representation was never evenly distributed, and different communities experienced the colonial system in distinct ways. In 1906, the formation of the All India Muslim League marked another turning point, reflecting the growing demand for separate political representation among Indian Muslims. Figures such as Nawab Salimullah of Dhaka played a role in shaping its early trajectory, even though the organisation would only later gain full political strength.
The political evolution of the Muslim League reached its most decisive phase under Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who gradually transformed it into the central platform for Muslim political identity in undivided India. His leadership during the fraught decades leading to Partition in 1947 remains one of the most consequential in the region’s modern history. The creation of Pakistan was not simply a territorial rearrangement but the outcome of competing political visions about identity, governance and representation.
Yet independence did not resolve the deeper question of nation-building; it merely relocated it. The new state of Pakistan inherited not only administrative structures but also unresolved political tensions, regional disparities and institutional weaknesses. The challenge was no longer how to achieve independence, but how to make a functioning nation out of it.
In the years that followed, political instability became a defining feature. In what was then East Pakistan, tensions between political movements and central authority deepened. The rise of the Awami League and its growing demand for greater autonomy reflected long-standing grievances about representation and governance. The Six-Point Movement, associated with Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, became a focal point for Bengali political identity, shaping mass mobilisation and sharpening demands for constitutional restructuring.
These developments ultimately culminated in the creation of Bangladesh in 1971, following a violent and transformative conflict that reshaped the political map of South Asia. The new state emerged with immense expectations: that independence would naturally lead to stability, democracy and equitable development. But as is often the case in post-colonial contexts, the reality proved more complicated.
The early years of Bangladesh were marked by attempts to consolidate authority and define the structures of governance. Under Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the state sought to establish control over a fractured political landscape, but it also faced criticism over centralisation and economic hardship. His assassination in 1975 ushered in a prolonged period of military-backed governance and political experimentation.
Subsequent regimes, including that of Ziaur Rahman, attempted to stabilise the state through institutional restructuring and economic reform. Zia’s tenure is often associated with efforts to broaden political participation and redefine national identity within a more plural political framework. Later, under Hussain Muhammad Ershad, governance once again shifted towards military-led administration, accompanied by development initiatives but also growing public dissatisfaction with democratic deficits.
By the time democratic rule was restored in the 1990s, expectations were high that electoral politics would translate into improved governance and more accountable institutions. Yet the decades that followed revealed how difficult that transition would be. Successive governments struggled with issues of political polarisation, administrative inefficiency and allegations of entrenched patronage networks. While economic growth and infrastructure development continued in various forms, questions about institutional strength and democratic practice remained central to public debate.
The long tenure of Sheikh Hasina as prime minister became a defining feature of this period, marked by both development achievements and persistent controversy over political space and institutional independence. Supporters point to economic progress and infrastructure expansion, while critics have raised concerns about governance and democratic constraints. These competing interpretations reflect the broader struggle within Bangladesh’s political system to balance stability with pluralism.
The future of politics in Bangladesh, as in many young democracies, will depend not only on leadership but on restraint, cooperation and institutional maturity. No single party or leader can carry the burden of nation-building alone. It requires a political culture in which opposition is not treated as an enemy and governance is not reduced to victory and defeat. Instead, both should function within a shared framework of national responsibility.
If there is a lesson to be drawn from the region’s political history, it is that the strength of a nation is not measured solely by its capacity to win independence or manage transitions, but by its ability to sustain dialogue, absorb dissent and convert conflict into constructive reform. That remains the central challenge—and the enduring promise—of nation-building.
(The writer is an academic and political commentator in Bangladesh and can be reached at news@metro-morning.com)
