Are we heading to a missed opportunity for state reconstruction?

by Zobaer Al Mahmud 

ALTHOUGH the July-August mass uprising was successful in breaking away from the brutal, oppressive fascist-mafia regime, the systems of oppression have largely been preserved. Broadly speaking, the interim government has failed to uproot the fascistic, colonial-mafia structures. The political establishment or settlement of Bangladesh is fundamentally anti-democratic. Here, sovereignty belongs not to the people or the individual, but to the state, the government, or the parliament. Thus, we have failed to establish a true republic — even after the anti-colonial movement, the Liberation War and mass uprisings. Bangladesh’s political landscape is still defined by executive-head-centred elected autocracy, parliamentary autocracy, parliamentary kleptocracy, and business-oligarch-controlled mafia politics. 

In this structure, the political and social rights of individuals, as well as personal dignity and development, are not at the centre of politics or the constitution. Instead, the stability of the state and the security of the government take precedence. What we have established is a security state, not a republic or democratic state. What we need is to uproot the undemocratic, autocratic, fascist structures, laws and the constitution itself — and to frame a new democratic constitution. After August 5, the old undemocratic, fascist constitution was preserved. The interim government was formed under Article 106, which mandates it to perform only routine functions. As a result, revolutionary changes in the established systems — deeply embedded in our political settlement — were prevented in the name of constitutional continuity. But what does constitutional continuity mean? It means the continuation of the state-sovereignty-based model of the security state. It means the survival of colonial laws propped up by the constitution. It means the persistence of parliamentary-sovereignty-based autocracy and the business-oligarch-controlled parliamentary kleptocracy. It means the continuity of a prime minister-centric elected autocracy. Therefore, over the past year, interim government have failed to dismantle the fascist apparatuses, systems and tendencies within the state, the law, the administration and the security forces. 

The colonial administration, colonial bureaucracy and colonial laws — including the 1861 Police Act and 1898 Criminal Procedures Act — remain intact. Repressive structures and laws, such as the 1974 Special Powers Act and the RAB Bill of 2003, have not been repealed. The oppressive mechanisms within the police, DGFI and other security agencies also remain untouched. The reform proposals suggested by various commissions appear cosmetic and superficial rather than revolutionary. The very idea of ‘reformation’ instead of ‘revolutionary change’ has been the key reason for our failure to uproot these fascistic, colonial-mafia systems and structures. As a result, both the National July Charter and the July Proclamation Draft contain merely surface-level reform proposals — offering mild to moderate checks and balances between centres of power without altering the essence or character of power itself. I fear we are once again heading towards a missed opportunity for true state reconstruction. 

Some intellectuals have criticised the July mass uprising, arguing that it did not constitute a true revolution in the social sense. Their concept of revolution is inspired by historical examples such as the French Revolution, which aimed at transforming society at its core. However, the July uprising in Bangladesh was primarily a political revolution — it fought against a brutal, fascist regime characterised by totalitarianism and paved the way for a democratic transition. In this sense, the July revolution bears more resemblance to the American Revolution (1776) than to the French one. It was a democratic revolution focused on political change rather than a comprehensive social upheaval. The American Revolution succeeded in establishing political freedom, while the July revolution in Bangladesh continues to struggle. Although the United States also experienced colonial rule, it benefited from the constitutional framework of British monarchy, which already allowed for a separation of powers and checks and balances. American revolutionaries built upon these emerging democratic practices to successfully create a political community and achieve political liberty. In contrast, the colonial systems inherited in Bangladesh were deeply undemocratic. The people were historically excluded from political power and decision-making. Even with the three major political turning points in 1947, 1971 and 1990, Bangladesh has failed to dismantle these entrenched colonial structures.

Colonial legacies persist in state institutions, administrative machinery, education, culture and politics. Additionally, a Calcutta-centred cultural hegemony, propagated during British rule, played a crucial role in fostering cultural fascism in present-day Bangladesh. The Hasina regime became deeply entrenched because it inherited not only colonial institutional frameworks but also the authoritarian tendencies of the BAKSAL legacy, along with a mafia-like political structure. Without thorough decolonisation, the promise of political freedom will remain an illusion. To achieve genuine popular sovereignty, it is essential to uproot these colonial and fascist structures. The July revolutionaries failed to identify and dismantle the underlying state mechanisms that supported the fallen Hasina regime. They must recognise that true political liberation requires confronting and defeating colonial frameworks, fascist systems, Bakshali ideologies, mafia-style politics and the corrupt practices of parliamentary autocracy and kleptocracy. As long as these oppressive systems remain intact, free and fair elections alone will not be sufficient to deliver political freedom. The people of Bangladesh must prepare for another popular uprising to dismantle these entrenched power structures. In this sense, the July revolution remains incomplete, and a second, more comprehensive uprising is inevitable.

The Yunus government lost its grip when it chose to prioritise political party consensus over the mandate of the July mass uprising. This was the second major blunder by the interim government and its think tanks, following its earlier mistake of insisting on constitutional continuity. Given that most of the political parties currently lack genuine constitutive power, it’s not surprising that the so-called July Charter — based on political consensus — will likely be a superficial document.

I fear that this Charter will fail to reflect the true aspirations of the July revolutionaries. Instead, it risks becoming a compromised, sugar-coated version of reform that ultimately preserves the fascistic, colonial and mafia-like systems and apparatuses that the uprising sought to dismantle. Consensus on keeping the fascistic colonial mafia systems intact is a false unity and anti-people. Based on this consensus, formulation of any July charter and July proclamation will be a farce.

In the current political landscape of Bangladesh, reform commissions formulated by the interim government and civil society actors — including the recently formed Nagorik Coalition — have positioned themselves as champions of reform. However, their actions suggest that they are promoting superficial, cosmetic reforms that serve to maintain the very systems they claim to challenge. Whether by intention or through a failure of analysis, they are obstructing the deeper, structural transformation necessary to dismantle the fascistic-colonial-mafia apparatus that governs the state. Take for example their recent constitutional reform proposal. Instead of endorsing the revolutionary demand to uproot the fascist Constitution and replace it with a new, democratic one, the Nagorik Coalition has settled for a watered-down version of reforms — largely echoing the suggestions made by the Ali Riaz-led commission. These proposals, while potentially improving checks and balances between government branches, fundamentally leave intact the existing power architecture. They do not address: a) The colonial legacy embedded in state institutions; b) The fascistic apparatus enabling state repression; and c) The kleptocratic and autocratic tendencies stemming from unchecked parliamentary sovereignty. The root crisis in Bangladesh is not merely the absence of institutional checks and balances. It is the nature of sovereignty itself. In the current system, sovereignty lies not with the people, but with the state, the government or the parliament — entities that have repeatedly failed to represent the will of the people. In contrast, the July mass uprising has boldly articulated the need for a new democratic constitution, one that places sovereignty unequivocally in the hands of individuals and the collective people. Constitutional reform commission and the Nagorik Coalition, by failing to grasp this foundational issue, are inadvertently perpetuating the very crisis it claims to resolve. 

The Yunus government ignored mass uprising’s demands of ‘state reconstruction and state reforms’ and submitted to pro-establishment agenda of ‘regime change through early elections keeping the fascistic and colonial systems intact’. It’s alarming. State reconstruction and state reforms are supposed to be done by this interim government; however the government is going to pass this duty to the next government which will definitely be a pro-establishment government. The strategy of building a consensus among pro-establishment political parties on reform ideas and formulating July charter based on that consensus is a wrong strategy as this will be a charter of cosmetic reforms rather than a charter of fundamental change. This charter will block the fundamental change and convert July mass uprising into a failed one similar to 90. I have written several times that July charter based on consensus from pro-establishment parties is a trap to destroy or hijack the July mass uprising. The interim government and its policy makers failed to understand that mass uprising itself provided the mandate to uproot the colonial-fascist-mafia systems, so asking consensus from parties who are part of the systems will be counterproductive. What the interim government should have done is declare the July proclamation aiming at uprooting fascistic systems, colonial systems and mafia oligarchy. Based on this proclamation the government should have abolished the current constitution which acted as a tool to install constitutional fascism and should have worked for constituting a new democratic constitution. In Bangladesh every party claims that they are the peoples and they have mandate from people. In political science, we refer to ‘political community’ rather than vague term people. So, who constitutes the political community? A political community is the collective forces that have constitutive power to constitute a sovereign state/ body. This political community will constitute their constitution. 

As our old political parties failed to understand the need for a new democratic constitution even after a mass uprising against fascism and neo-colonial aggression, they have no constitutive power and thus they failed to uphold the July mass uprising. These parties are not political parties, rather they are just a mere club of mafia oligarchs and colonial style rulers. The policy makers in the interim government seem to implement the aspirations and demands of these pro-establishment parties and ignore the mass uprising’s demands of fundamental change in the system. Reform in political parties is also mandatory and the parties must not be a centre of mafia oligarchs and colonial style rulers; rather they must act as a political community. Based on current structures, these political parties cannot be reformed. Thus, new political parties having constitutive powers must be formed. While the interim government should have implemented strategies to do reforms in political parties, they have submitted themselves to the demands of these parties. 

After the July mass uprising, the main task is to uproot the fascist, colonial and anti-people laws, structures, systems and mechanisms of the state, and to introduce a democratic framework. If this is not done, and if the achievements of the July revolution are reduced merely to ballot boxes, then the ongoing campaign to confine this movement to elections will cost us the opportunity to truly rebuild the state. Elections will happen — they must happen. But the project of merely changing power within the same mafia, exploitative political structure and fascist system is the same old anti-people project. Even if August 5 does not bring a concrete outcome, the people of Bangladesh deserve a new democratic constitution and a new republic. The significance of August 5 lies in the fact that it has brought this popular aspiration to the centre of politics. Yet, despite its failure to uproot the fascist-colonial-mafia systems, the significance of the July mass revolution lies in the fact that it has brought the demand for revolutionary change in the state structure to the forefront of Bangladeshi politics. 

From now on, the main political conflict will centre around two opposing visions: the politics of preserving the old establishment — including colonial, fascist and mafia systems — versus the politics of uprooting that very establishment. The July Revolution demands the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty, state-sovereignty-based parliamentary autocracy, and elected executive-head-centred autocracy. The people of Bangladesh will continue their political struggle to establish a true republic — one grounded in popular and individual sovereignty, brought into being through a new democratic constitution. The July Revolution will have a long-term impact on Bangladesh’s political and social landscape. It has injected a new political consciousness and spiritual energy among the people — especially the younger generation — who will continue the fight to build a new republic, where  the dignity, rights and freedoms of the people will be at the core and protected above all else.

Dr Zobaer Al Mahmud is a writer on socio-political issues and associate professor of pharmacology, University of Dhaka.