By Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury
History rarely forecasts catastrophe with fireworks. More often, it advances quietly, cloaked in the language of reform, democracy, and “popular will”. Bangladesh today is living through such a moment. What is unfolding is not a democratic correction after authoritarian excess, but a carefully engineered political transformation that risks replacing constitutional governance with revolutionary absolutism. And disturbingly, this trajectory was neither accidental nor unforeseeable.
Since 2021, under the Biden administration, Bangladesh has become a testing ground for an aggressive and ideologically driven approach to foreign policy. Under the banner of democracy promotion, Washington aligned itself with a constellation of actors whose interests had little to do with pluralism or institutional stability. The result was a sustained pressure campaign that weakened the elected government of Sheikh Hasina while emboldening Islamist forces, transnational lobbyists, and foreign adversaries eager to exploit the vacuum.
Muhammad Yunus, long celebrated in Western political and philanthropic circles, emerged as the centerpiece of this project. His deep ties to Democratic Party power brokers, global NGOs, and influential financial networks were not incidental. They formed the backbone of a regime-change ecosystem that deployed civil society activism, economic pressure, media manipulation, and diplomatic isolation to destabilize Bangladesh’s political equilibrium.
Millions of dollars in Western aid, channeled through NGOs and intermediaries, flowed into Bangladesh during this period. While publicly justified as support for democracy and human rights, these funds often ended up reinforcing street agitation, legitimizing unelected actors, and creating conditions ripe for confrontation. Islamist and jihadist elements, long dormant or marginalized, found new confidence and operational space amid the chaos.
Crucially, the Awami League government failed to grasp the magnitude of the threat. Instead of responding decisively, it became mired in corruption, strategic arrogance, and a fatal belief in its own permanence. Investigations, including one by Agence France-Presse, later exposed how a sophisticated propaganda apparatus churned out glowing articles praising government policies under fake bylines and fabricated expert profiles. This attempt to manufacture legitimacy backfired spectacularly, eroding credibility both at home and abroad.
Warnings from intelligence agencies and seasoned analysts about a “silent regime-change operation” were ignored. The assumption was simple and catastrophic: Bangladesh was too stable, Sheikh Hasina too experienced, and the state too resilient for such a plot to succeed.
That illusion shattered on August 5, 2024, when Sheikh Hasina was removed from power in a violent upheaval backed by elements within the military. Two days later, Muhammad Yunus assumed office, not through an electoral mandate but via revolutionary circumstances. Almost immediately, his administration began recalibrating Bangladesh’s strategic orientation.
Publicly, Yunus spoke the language of reform and reconciliation. Privately and operationally, his government pivoted sharply toward China and Pakistan. Economic favors were quietly extended to individuals and entities recommended by powerful Western patrons, even as large-scale defense and infrastructure negotiations accelerated with Beijing.
That referendum, now positioned as the defining political event of February 12, has little to do with democratic renewal. Its true purpose is to bypass elections altogether and concentrate authority in Yunus’s hands under the guise of revolutionary legitimacy. This is not conjecture; it is a pattern with historical precedent.
The growing external involvement in Bangladesh’s internal political process has also become increasingly visible. China’s ambassador in Dhaka, Yao Wen, was recently seen publicly engaging with campaigns supportive of the proposed referendum – an unusual step for a foreign envoy in a country ostensibly undergoing a democratic transition.
At the same time, the interim authorities have drawn criticism for repurposing Indian-donated ambulances equipped with ICU facilities for referendum-related activities, a move widely interpreted as a political signal intended to further reassure Beijing, New Delhi’s principal regional rival.
While much of the international community remains focused on the prospect of general elections scheduled for February 12, Western diplomatic engagement in Dhaka continues largely unchanged. The US envoy, Brent Christensen, has emphasized the goal of “working with all Bangladeshi political parties to advance shared peace and prosperity”. Notably absent, however, has been any public questioning from Western diplomats regarding the administration’s intense focus on the referendum at the apparent expense of an electoral roadmap.
Iran followed a similar path after 1979. Revolutionary fervor, street mobilization, and claims of moral authority were used to justify the creation of a Supreme Leader operating beyond constitutional checks. What followed was not empowerment of the people but the entrenchment of an unaccountable elite.
Bangladesh is now flirting with the same abyss. The so-called “July uprising” of 2024 is being mythologized as a people’s revolution, even as institutions are hollowed out and dissenting voices silenced. Revolutionary narratives are powerful tools. They allow leaders to claim they alone embody the will of the people, rendering elections, courts, and parliaments obsolete.
China and Pakistan understand this dynamic well. Beijing sees in Bangladesh an opportunity to expand strategic influence over critical waterways, infrastructure, and resources. Islamabad, Beijing’s most trusted regional partner, views a weakened and radicalized Bangladesh as both a strategic asset and a potential pressure point against India. The implications for regional and global security are profound.
If the February 12 referendum succeeds, Bangladesh will not become more democratic. It will become more opaque, more centralized, and more vulnerable to external manipulation. A new “Supreme Leader” model will emerge, shielded by revolutionary rhetoric and backed by foreign patrons hostile to US interests.
This is not merely Bangladesh’s problem. A radicalized, authoritarian Bangladesh aligned with China and Pakistan would represent a far greater long-term threat to Western strategic interests than many policymakers currently acknowledge.
President Donald Trump inherits this crisis. The question is whether Washington will continue to watch passively as another nation slides into authoritarianism under the false banner of revolution, or whether it will act decisively to support constitutional order, genuine elections, and regional stability.
History will not judge kindly those who mistook silence for prudence while a nation slipped into darkness. Bangladesh still stands at a crossroads. But the window for corrective action is closing fast.
(The writer is an award-winning journalist, writer, and Editor of the newspaper Blitz. He specializes in counterterrorism and regional geopolitics)
