By Professor Dr S.K. Akram Ali
Success has always carried within it the seeds of danger. For nations as much as for individuals, triumph can create a sense of invincibility that clouds judgment, weakens restraint and encourages political excess. History repeatedly demonstrates that when leaders begin to mistake electoral victory for permanent authority, the consequences can be severe not only for governments but for entire societies. The political history of Bangladesh, and before that East Pakistan, offers one of the clearest examples of how overwhelming success can evolve into instability, division and eventual crisis.
The first major lesson emerged from the historic provincial election of 1954 in East Pakistan. The United Front achieved a remarkable victory against the Muslim League, reflecting deep public frustration with centralized rule and economic neglect. Yet the triumph quickly became entangled in internal rivalries, factional disputes and an inability to sustain unity around the celebrated 21-point program. What began as a democratic breakthrough soon descended into political disorder. The instability that followed strengthened the argument for authoritarian intervention and ultimately contributed to the imposition of martial law in 1958.
In many ways, the democratic failure of that period planted the early seeds of East Pakistan’s eventual separation from Pakistan. The years that followed only deepened the crisis. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s six-point movement transformed Bengali nationalism into a powerful political force, while the student-led eleven-point uprising of 1969 accelerated the collapse of Ayub Khan’s regime. By the time elections were finally held in December 1970, after the devastating cyclone in East Pakistan, the Awami League secured a sweeping mandate. The result should have opened the door to a negotiated democratic settlement. Instead, mistrust, inflexibility and political ambition pushed the country towards catastrophe.
Sheikh Mujib’s insistence on his program, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s confrontational posture in West Pakistan and Yahya Khan’s inability to broker compromise together created a political deadlock that proved fatal for the country’s unity. The military crackdown of 25 March 1971 remains one of the darkest chapters in South Asian history. The bloodshed, displacement and trauma that followed reshaped the region permanently. India, pursuing its own strategic interests, intervened decisively, while the people of East Pakistan became trapped in a conflict far larger than themselves. The tragedy demonstrated how political overconfidence and the refusal to compromise can destroy even the strongest electoral mandates.
Bangladesh’s post-independence history carried similar warnings. In the 1973 election, the Awami League achieved near-total dominance in parliament. Yet instead of consolidating democratic institutions, the leadership moved increasingly towards one-party rule. The creation of BAKSAL reflected a dangerous concentration of power that alienated many who had once supported the liberation movement. Sheikh Mujib’s assassination in August 1975 was not simply the fall of a leader; it symbolized the collapse of a political vision that had drifted away from democratic accountability.
Ziaur Rahman’s rise marked a different phase in Bangladesh’s political development. Unlike many leaders shaped by revolutionary politics, Zia attempted to rebuild institutions, revive economic confidence and establish a broader diplomatic balance with the Muslim world and the West. His political success rested largely on pragmatism, discipline and a relatively modest public image. Yet even his administration could not escape the instability that so often shadows political authority in the subcontinent. His assassination in 1981 again illustrated the fragility of political success in a deeply polarized environment.
The military rule of Hussain Muhammad Ershad brought economic development in certain sectors but lacked democratic legitimacy. Public frustration eventually culminated in the mass uprising of 1990, restoring parliamentary democracy and bringing Khaleda Zia to power. But the democratic era that followed became increasingly defined by confrontation between the BNP and the Awami League. Electoral victories were repeatedly treated not as temporary public trust but as permanent moral entitlement. The introduction of the caretaker government system itself emerged from profound distrust between political rivals.
The BNP’s landslide victory in 2001 created enormous confidence within the party and its alliance partners. Yet that confidence gradually evolved into political complacency and arrogance. Miscalculations, internal divisions and controversial decisions weakened the party’s position and contributed to its long period of political isolation during Sheikh Hasina’s increasingly authoritarian rule. For nearly two decades, opposition politics in Bangladesh remained constrained, while democratic space steadily narrowed.
The events of the July Revolution in 2024 changed the political landscape once again. The BNP’s overwhelming victory in the 2026 election has reopened a new chapter in Bangladeshi politics. Yet history offers a clear warning to the current leadership: public mandates are never permanent. Electoral success does not guarantee political survival. Governments that ignore accountability, delay reforms or distance themselves from the aspirations of ordinary citizens eventually lose legitimacy regardless of how overwhelming their victories may appear.
Tarique Rahman’s emphasis on dialogue, parliamentary cooperation and political maturity is an encouraging sign. Equally important is the role of the opposition, which must avoid the destructive politics of obstruction that has long paralyzed Bangladesh’s democratic culture. The success of the country’s democratic future now depends less on electoral victories and more on whether political actors can finally learn the lessons of their own history. Bangladesh has experienced enough cycles of triumph followed by crisis. The challenge before its leaders today is not merely to win power but to exercise it with humility, restraint and democratic wisdom.
(The writer is an academic and political commentator in Bangladesh and can be reached at editorial@metro-morning.com)
