Sheikh Hasina wants Bangladesh to believe that the Awami League’s return is a matter of time. In a recent Reuters interview, the ousted prime minister said she and other exiled senior party leaders planned to return to Dhaka and surrender to the authorities.
She sought to frame their eventual homecoming as the opening chapter of a political comeback rather than the closing line of a dynastic era. Yet that prediction may prove less persuasive than the structural forces working against it.
Political parties rarely vanish overnight. Even after popular revolutions or catastrophic electoral defeats, established organizations often survive for decades because they retain entrenched networks and a mixture of lingering fear and hope.
They can also decay gradually, hollowed out from within as the socio-economic conditions that sustained them cease to exist. If the Awami League ultimately fades into political irrelevance, it will happen because the ecosystem that nurtured the party for nearly two decades is eroding.
The most immediate threat is financial. Politics is an expensive business, and the Awami League under Hasina was built on a vast patronage structure. Local organizers, campus activists and neighborhood enforcers depended on a steady flow of resources that rewarded loyalty and maintained the party’s organizational reach.
Those financial channels have already narrowed. Domestic sources of revenue have become more constrained as bank accounts are frozen and businesses realign their loyalties. External funding is also likely to diminish as international backers recalculate their interests.
A patronage machine does not require bankruptcy to fail; it requires insufficient funding to sustain its workforce. Once political affiliation no longer provides a reliable livelihood, many of the party’s lower-level operatives will seek employment elsewhere.
Some will drift into rival parties, offering their organizational skills and local influence to whoever is willing to pay. Others will leave politics altogether. History shows that patronage networks collapse long before formal political identities do.
Another factor is leadership. Few political organizations in South Asia have become as personalized as the Awami League under Hasina. Decision-making, internal discipline and political legitimacy increasingly revolved around a single individual rather than institutions.
Many party members appear to believe that loyalty remains essential because Hasina, even from exile, retains the ability to reward obedience and punish betrayal. Whether that perception is accurate matters less than the fact that it shapes political behavior.
Fear can be a powerful organizational asset. But that asset has an expiration date. Whenever Hasina exits the political stage permanently, many of the calculations that now discourage defections will change overnight.
Leaders who remain in exile, particularly those whose identities are not rooted exclusively in professional politics, are likely to negotiate accommodations with the state, accept legal or political settlements, and rebuild ordinary lives.
Decisive factors also lie outside the Awami League itself. And that is where we should concentrate more.
Bangladesh’s political trajectory will depend less on whether one party returns than on whether the country’s institutions become capable of managing political conflict without turning every disagreement into an existential crisis.
Modern democracies function because political rivals negotiate and compromise. Governments change, but the state continues to operate. Serious political disputes do not automatically paralyze daily life or freeze economic activity.
Citizens continue to work, invest and plan for the future without wondering whether the next confrontation on the streets will engulf the country in violence. Bangladesh has rarely enjoyed that kind of political equilibrium. Too often, its politics has oscillated between confrontation and domination.
Neither produces durable democratic institutions. The challenge is to establish a system where the government and the opposition remain genuine competitors without becoming permanent enemies.
They should not become so closely aligned that democratic competition becomes meaningless, but neither should they become so polarized that consensus becomes impossible on constitutional order, economic stability, foreign policy and public security.
The most decisive factor is cultural, and therefore the slowest to materialize. During Hasina’s rule, politics expanded far beyond elections and policymaking. It increasingly determined access to economic opportunity, social mobility, business success and institutional influence.
Political identity became a form of capital. Many public debates became ideological loyalty tests rather than discussions about policy or competence. A healthier political culture would gradually reverse those incentives, ensuring that professional achievement matters more than partisan affiliation.
Political parties would compete primarily over public policy rather than personality cults, and citizens would be able to disagree without treating politics as permanent warfare. That transformation would also reduce the need for the armies of local muscle that have become an enduring feature of Bangladeshi politics.
Every major party has relied on networks of street-level enforcers. A more institutional political order would still require security, but it would have far less use for thousands of informal foot soldiers whose primary function is intimidation or territorial control.
Ultimately, the strongest safeguard against authoritarian revival is neither revenge nor exclusion. It is the rule of law. Political parties may survive defeat and even temporary bans, but they cannot indefinitely survive a system where serious crimes are investigated impartially and prosecuted consistently, regardless of political affiliation.
The purpose of the law is to ensure that violence, corruption and abuse of power carry consequences regardless of who controls the government. The irony is that the Awami League’s future may depend less on what Hasina says from exile than on what Bangladesh becomes without her.
If the country’s institutions mature, patronage politics weakens and democratic competition becomes more predictable, the political environment that once made the Awami League indispensable will disappear. At that point, whether Hasina returns to Dhaka will become a secondary question.
The more consequential point will be that Bangladesh no longer needs the political model she built.
—
Nayel Rahman is a political analyst.