The high cost of hesitation in Bangladesh’s political transition
AUNUL ISLAM |
Political transitions are often turbulent, but they do not inevitably lead to lawlessness. Bangladesh’s recent interim period demonstrates how quickly violence can become normalised when state authority fails to respond decisively during moments of uncertainty.
According to human rights organisations cited by the European Union Agency for Asylum, Bangladesh experienced the highest number of deaths from mob beatings in a decade during the interim administration. Vigilante attacks, public assaults and politically motivated reprisals occurred with alarming frequency. The question is not why Bangladesh suddenly became more violent, but why violence was allowed to spread so rapidly.
Interim governments exist to provide stability during periods of political transition. Their role is not merely administrative; they are tasked with maintaining public order, preserving institutional legitimacy and preventing instability from escalating. In Bangladesh, this responsibility was put to the test at a critical moment.
Importantly, the Bangladeshi state did not collapse during this period. The police remained operational, courts continued to function and government institutions stayed in place. International recognition of the interim administration was strong. Authority existed.
Political theorist Hannah Arendt’s distinction between power and violence offers a useful framework for understanding what followed. For Arendt, power rests on legitimacy and collective acceptance, while violence often emerges when authority weakens or fails to assert itself. In this sense, the spread of mob violence can be understood not as a sign of public empowerment but as evidence of authority being unable—or unwilling—to establish clear boundaries.
In fragile political environments, hesitation can have significant consequences. Leaders do not need to actively encourage violence for it to proliferate. Delayed responses, inconsistent enforcement and ambiguous messaging can create conditions in which individuals begin to believe that certain actions will go unpunished.
This dynamic is reinforced by the work of sociologist Charles Tilly, who argued that collective violence is shaped by incentives and signals rather than spontaneous chaos. When early incidents are met with swift and visible consequences, violence is often contained. When perpetrators face little accountability, expectations of impunity begin to form.
Bangladesh appears to have followed this pattern. Early incidents of mob violence were not consistently met with rapid enforcement, allowing a perception to emerge that such behaviour carried limited risk. As more incidents occurred without visible consequences, the threshold for participation lowered and violence became increasingly normalised.
Once this process takes hold, restoring order becomes considerably more difficult. Public condemnations alone are rarely sufficient if confidence in enforcement has already eroded.
Some observers argue that the violence was unavoidable given the intensity of political change. Yet transitions elsewhere suggest that periods of uncertainty can also present opportunities to establish clear rules and expectations. Early arrests, transparent investigations and consistent public messaging can help shape behaviour before patterns of impunity become entrenched.
Bangladesh’s experience therefore offers a broader lesson about transitional governance. Interim administrations possess real authority, even if their mandate is temporary. The challenge is not simply to hold power, but to exercise it effectively during the narrow window when norms and expectations are being formed.
The experience also raises important questions about leadership. While structural conditions, political tensions and institutional weaknesses all contributed to the environment in which mob violence occurred, leadership decisions matter. The willingness to act quickly, communicate clearly and enforce the rule of law can shape whether isolated incidents remain isolated or develop into broader patterns of instability.
Bangladesh’s recent experience serves as a reminder that violence is not always the product of state collapse. Sometimes it emerges when authority exists but is not exercised decisively enough. In transitional periods, missed opportunities can have lasting consequences, transforming moments of uncertainty into enduring challenges for governance, public trust and social cohesion.
Dr Aunul Islam is a distinguished author, scholar, and business consultant who holds a PhD in Chemical Technology from Imperial College, University of London.