The interim government’s indifference in the face of spiraling violence and systemic collapse reveals a deeper truth that poverty cannot be eradicated through one-off charity projects or the well-meaning interventions of “self-appointed saviors of humanity.”

A society’s entrenched crises are never solved by benevolence alone. And yet, Bangladesh’s NGO system has long operated under precisely this illusion, setting ad hoc agendas without any regularized structure of public accountability.

The result is clear: no permanent public good can emerge from systems that are fabricated by civil society to fill the void of political failure.

These makeshift solutions cannot substitute for the legitimacy of an accountable political order, nor can they serve as a durable shield for citizens’ rights.

The function of the interim government after August 5, 2024, was not to confront this reality, but to preserve elite interests. Its role was to shield the bureaucracy and the military from what they feared could become a Jacobin-style excess, a revolutionary force spilling over into the Secretariat and the Cantonment.

For this narrow purpose, even forming a government was unnecessary. As soon as the names of Professor Muhammad Yunus and other civil society figures surfaced, Bangladesh’s intellectual establishment began containing the raw, destabilizing energy of the July uprising, channeling it into a sequence of closed-door dialogues that dulled its edge.

Whether this move was prudent or cowardly remains contested. A younger set of intellectuals–those who seem to imagine themselves as Marvel’s Ant-Man, directing their “ant army” of crowds–regard it as a tragic loss of revolutionary potential.

But the truth is more complicated. In a country standing on the brink, the restraint of the masses prevented Bangladesh from plunging into the abyss.

More importantly, it stripped the Awami League of its most potent weapon: the politics of victimhood.

And yet, this act of containment created a vacuum of opportunity. With the immediate crisis averted, the interim government had before it a historic chance–to expose, with full clarity, the Awami League’s machinery of plunder, its regime of disappearances, and its systematic politics of murder.

It could have set the stage for dismantling the entrenched networks of corruption that define Bangladeshi politics.

Instead, it did nothing.

A failure to act

That choice, or indecision, will not escape history’s judgment. Future political historians will trace the threads of this inaction, uncovering the forces and figures who stood in the way.

The interim government was handed a rare mandate to confront the rot at the system’s core. It squandered it.

The irony is that the interim government’s very indecision–their refusal to fully dismantle the Awami system–has created fertile ground for the so-called “Ant-Men” of Bengali politics.

These actors, intoxicated by their imagined power to command the mob, now seize on the vacuum to manufacture arguments for mob violence as legitimate politics.

What emerges is the paradox of Bangladesh’s “foolishly liberal” moment: a hesitant, half-measure government inadvertently clears space for reactionary forces.

The interim government resembles a batsman who hits two flashy boundaries, then promptly throws away the wicket, as if those strokes alone could satisfy the stadium crowd. The message seems to be: “We saved the country in August–don’t expect us to do more.”

Their posture evokes the charity worker handing out rice at a train station while idly smoking, convinced that the mere act of giving, however sporadic, absolves them of all further responsibility.

To question them feels as pointless as asking why a charity skipped a Friday meal–you may ask, but you’ll get no answer. Their press briefings read like the product of a bureaucracy that possesses neither eyes nor ears, only a mouth to spout platitudes and a hand to jot them down.

To be fair, however, this malaise is not the interim government’s alone. It is woven into Bangladesh’s political culture, where the residues of feudalism still define the grammar of power.

For centuries, landlords extracted blood from peasants while burnishing their image by digging ponds or building hospitals. That tradition endures and accountability is not seen as intrinsic to office, but as a charitable gesture bestowed from above.

Government salaries are imagined less as a contract of responsibility than as a scholarship reward for having passed the BCS exam–an entitlement disconnected from performance.

The prices that we pay

The consequence is devastating.

Those tasked with protecting rights act as benefactors instead of guarantors. Politics becomes a series of one-off efforts to secure absolution rather than a system of continuous duty.

The eternal principle that “vigilance is the price of freedom” has no place here. Rights are not acknowledged as permanent facts of citizenship but are instead treated as negotiable, to be purchased in exchange for loyalty, access, or submission.

This is precisely how the Awami League rationalized its plunder. It looted and hollowed out Bangladesh’s banks under the pretense of saving the nation from militancy and safeguarding the supposed “right” to hold concerts and cultural events.

Now, with that regime gone, and the banks no longer being ransacked in the same fashion, even those fragile cultural “subscriptions” have been revoked.

The message could not be clearer: there are no inalienable rights here. Everything–art, expression, livelihood–exists at the mercy of those in power, who can withdraw it at will.

In such a system, the guardians of rights believe their work is complete once they can point to a singular achievement, often decades in the past, much like the pride taken in having once passed the 47th or 48th BCS exam. But rights cannot be safeguarded by one-off accomplishments.

Accountability, by its very nature, is continuous. It is not an act of charity, nor a historical footnote.

Unless Bangladesh designs a political system rooted in ongoing responsibility–where the legitimacy of government is measured not by a past victory but by daily service to citizens–its people will remain unprotected.

A state that survives on borrowed credit from history can never guarantee rights in the present.

—

Mikail Hossain is a writer and analyst