I am not at all surprised by the bipartisan chorus rallying against the idea of “handing over ports to foreigners.”

For more than a year now, Bangladesh’s anti-Hasina parties have repeatedly demonstrated why they failed to build any genuinely mass-based movement. What was required was a new kind of leadership, one untainted by the exhaustion of old political lineages and credible enough to mobilize people across generations.

For that to happen, the established parties had to retreat, or at least appear to retreat. And to their credit, they understood the moment.

The BNP and Jamaat supplied manpower, muscle, logistics, and silent organizational scaffolding, yet publicly insisted they were offering only “moral support.” Jamaat, banned from formal political engagement, even declared it would not be participating in the movement, a statement that was less a confession than a strategic mask.

Surveys showed the public professing mistrust of all political parties. Maybe some were genuinely undecided. But more likely, many were withholding their political sympathies, refusing to reveal their hand in a landscape where political affiliations have long been weaponized.

The opacity itself speaks volumes.

Yet after the uprising, the limits of student leadership became unmistakably clear. A student-led street revolt is one thing; governing a state is another.

The architecture of institutional discipline, and long-view planning cannot be improvised overnight.

The public, sensing that gap, seems understandably wary of handing over the machinery of governance to those whose primary skill has been disruption rather than construction.

No feasible alternative

That’s why the National Citizens Party (NCP) has not yet become the real alternative. It had an opportunity to harness public disillusionment with traditional parties, but failed to convert that sentiment into organizational durability.

The reasons are painfully familiar: inexperience; susceptibility to pre-cooked strategies offered by remnants of the old order; insufficient ideological clarity; and perhaps most critically, an inability to build coalitions across social strata.

The private-university-bred leadership in particular seemed burdened by an ingrained insecurity when engaging with constituencies beyond its own class-coded, English-educated milieu.

That, ultimately, is the paradox of the post-Hasina moment. The country finally witnessed a genuine mass uprising but the political actors who could have inherited its momentum were either mistrusted or blinkered by their own limitations.

What is striking–and tragic–is how deeply the political imagination remains entangled in older reflexes, even while speaking in the vocabulary of change.

The real failure, in my view, lies not in their ambition but in their inability to craft a compelling narrative for reform, one that goes beyond ritual denunciations and ceremonial anti-party rhetoric.

Had their stance been genuinely pro-reform, rather than simply anti-BNP or anti-Jamaat by habit, they might have built a natural constituency among urban voters who are hungry for structural renewal rather than partisan scoring.

Translating the chaos

The coming election, then, is not merely the selection of a governing authority. It is also a national self-interrogation.

Polling data and anecdotal snippets can suggest trends, but only the vote will reveal whether there has been genuine political maturation–whether citizens actually crave a new political horizon, or whether they remain tethered to external cues and American-mediated decision-making.

If the BNP secures a sweeping, runaway victory, say 200 to 270 seats, I will interpret that as a resounding endorsement of continuity, of the familiar political grammar.

If the BNP’s win is narrower, somewhere between 150 and 200, that would suggest an electorate negotiating a delicate balance between existing frameworks, modest reform, and the perceived safety of stability.

And the smaller their margin, the stronger the implication that voters are leaning toward change rather than restoration.

Anything outside these contours–especially a result that denies the BNP these thresholds–would signal a public willing to risk the uncertainties of reform for the possibility of something fundamentally new.

Yet the recent controversy over foreign port management, and the quick political retreat it triggered, leaves me skeptical that Jamaat or its affiliates will meaningfully challenge the traditional power circuitry anytime soon.

There is, too, a darker possibility. It is entirely plausible that this may be the last truly competitive election for some time.

Bangladesh today does not possess the institutional durability–nor the psychological stamina–that it once did in the 1990s, when democratic turbulence could be absorbed without collapsing into dysfunction.

The country is balancing on a delicate hinge point, and the wrong gust of political wind could push it into a spiral from which recovery will be slow and uncertain.

—

Nayel Rahman is a political analyst