On Christmas Day this year, Tarique Rahman, the heir apparent of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and who many believe could become the country’s next prime minister, returned home, stepping directly into the power vacuum that has steadily widened since the fall of the Awami League government in August 2024.
After 17 years in exile, Luhrmann’s act of touching the soil was carefully staged in front of the camera, but the result was structural rather than symbolic. His return marks the end of a brief post-revolutionary period in Bangladesh, a nation without a steady beating heart.
Five days later, on December 30, the political moment solidified into a historic conclusion. Khaleda Zia, former prime minister and wife of BNP founder and former Bangladesh president Ziaur Rahman, has passed away after a long illness, severing the party’s last living link to the party’s first generation of leaders.
Mr. Rahman is no longer the successor of Mr. Khaleda Zia. He is currently the leader of the BNP ahead of elections on February 12th.
The country Mr. Rahman left in 2008 was divided. The house he currently lives in is structurally compromised. A hasty flight to India after the uprising against Sheikh Hasina ended a decade and a half of dictatorial rule, but left behind a hollowed-out bureaucracy and a shredded social contract.
While the interim government of President Muhammad Yunus seeks to manage the transition, street powers have already begun to circumvent formal authority. Amid this instability, Rahman’s presence serves as a high-voltage conductor for the BNP, a focal point for an opposition that until recently had been systematically suppressed.
For millions of people who saw elections during the past decade under Hasina’s authoritarian rule as a foregone conclusion, Rahman is once again offering a choice.
But Rahman is no rebel outsider. He is the ultimate product of the system he is trying to lead. As the son of two of the country’s former leaders, he carries the weight of a dynastic legacy closely linked to patronage networks that have long hampered Bangladesh’s rule. His early access to power was marked by allegations of informal authority and corruption, accusations that still serve as political ammunition for his detractors. To his supporters, he is a victim of judicial overreach. To critics, he proves why Bangladesh’s democratic experiment often collapses under the weight of elite impunity.
This duality defines the tension of his return. Rahman is now trying to pivot, trading the rhetoric of street agitation for the cautious rhythms of a politician. His recent speeches emphasizing the protection of minorities, national unity and the rule of law suggest that the leader is acutely aware that the young people who helped oust Hasina will not accept a simple change in the ruling elite’s identity.
The BNP, which he now leads, faces a Bangladesh that is more globally integrated and less patient with opaque politics. If Rahman seizes power, there will be immediate pressure to reform the judicial system and the electoral commission. Without institutional trust, the mandate he secured would be dangerously short-lived.
Financially, Rahman is likely to pursue pragmatic continuity. Bangladesh’s dependence on garment exports and foreign investment leaves little room for ideological experimentation. The real test is internal discipline. The temptation to settle old scores and reward supporters through the same rent-seeking channels used by previous governments will be immense. History suggests that this is where Bangladesh’s leaders fail. And the country’s current economic fragility leaves no room for such a luxury.
But perhaps the most sensitive area is foreign policy, particularly relations with India. Over the years, New Delhi has found a predictable, if tradable, partner in Sheikh Hasina. In contrast, the BNP has long been viewed with suspicion and strategic misgivings by India’s security community.
Mr. Rahman now appears to be signaling a reset, moving away from nationalist hostility toward what he calls “balanced sovereignty.” He understands that Bangladesh needs to recalibrate its relationship with India to satisfy domestic sentiments, but cannot afford to antagonize its most important neighbor. The challenge for India is to accept that a stable and pluralistic Bangladesh, even under a familiar rival, is preferable to a permanently unstable one.
Ultimately, Rahman’s return is a stress test not only for Bangladesh but also for the very idea of democratic choice in South Asia. This is not a simple dynastic succession. It’s a calculation. After years of forced stability and controlled outcomes, the reintroduction of political uncertainty is, paradoxically, a sign of democracy.
Whether Tariq Rahman uses this opportunity to rebuild the institutions he once circumvented or revert to his past habits will determine more than his personal legacy. It will determine whether Bangladesh can finally break the cycle of defection and revenge, or whether it is simply preparing for another collapse.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
