Liberty is an expensive commodity, bought with blood and easily squandered by neglect. In 1971, a bloody war fractured a country, bringing forth Bangladesh with grand promises of freedom but missing the crucial architecture of a foundational social contract. The new republic, born from broken institutions, repeatedly opened its doors to autocratic forces that eroded democratic ideals.
Fifty-five years of fragile independence brought the nation to an impasse, until exhausted university students erupted in the July Movement, ousting a ruling regime that had weaponized state power and systematically suppressed public consent. Yet the clean break that citizens craved failed to materialize.
The entrenched political class clung stubbornly to old habits of governance, leaving liberty to wander aimlessly through the fractured corridors of state power.
The newly established administration, taking the reins through democratic elections, appears to favor freedom for itself while remaining deeply allergic to criticism from both citizens and opposition groups. The fifth estate reflects this systemic confusion. Portions of the press retain their traditional subservience, taking refuge in the quiet comfort of flattering authority, while rival outlets embrace an unchecked sensationalism that strays far beyond the legitimate boundary of public service.
Meanwhile, the security apparatus continues to demand wide latitude, longing for its historic dual role as both investigator and executioner. The sudden loss of extrajudicial impunity under the former regime seems to have paralyzed their operational capacity; recent official statements hinting at a return to extrajudicial measures suggest that law enforcement believes order cannot be maintained without fear.
The judiciary presents an equally troubling picture. Rather than acting as a bulwark against tyranny, a significant faction of the bench actively seeks executive patronage for private gain. Decades of legal separation from executive control failed to instill the judicial independence needed to hold political masters accountable.
Among the populace, the concept of freedom has metastasized into an absolute, unyielding demand. Female university students view safety curfews as unwarranted infringements on their rights, attributing street harassment entirely to police failure. Conversely, when affluent elites are arrested in secured residences for illegal substance abuse, cries of government overreach echo through wealthy circles. Yet when drug trafficking goes unchecked, the public lays the blame entirely on administrative incompetence, forcing political resignations.
These contradictions force a fundamental question: how should a mature democratic society define liberty? Can freedom truly accommodate the divergent, self-serving demands of competing social classes, and who acts as the ultimate guarantor of equitable rights? What are the boundaries of state authority, and by what mechanism should power be exercised?
A victory at the ballot box cannot serve as a blank check for unrestrained rule. Nor can opposition parties treat liberty as merely a tool for disruption while waiting for the state to collapse. If citizens view every routine administrative action as an intolerable burden, governance becomes impossible.
Establishing a durable system of freedom requires forging a genuine social contract among the citizenry, political elites,and state institutions. Bangladesh’s march toward independence began with the language movement, driven by intense emotional unity.
Yet this fervor allowed charisma to substitute for institutional design. A revered founding figure became an unassailable patriarch, elevating personal loyalty above constitutional rule.
Consequently, the young republic lacked the institutional framework needed to define the rights of the governed and the limits of the state. Clash between citizens and authority followed swiftly, as basic political rights and free speech were curtailed through constitutional sleight of hand.
For more than five decades, attempts to establish a balanced relationship between the state and its people have been thwarted by a narrow ruling class intent on preserving its privileges. The human cost of this institutional failure has been extraordinary, marked by political assassinations and former autocrats fleeing across borders.
A robust social contract is essential for drawing a clear line between democratic authority and tyranny. The prerogatives of the state must be precisely defined and explicitly constrained by the sovereign people. In turn, citizens must accept the legitimate authority of the state without fearing its power.
Government and society must operate as complementary forces rather than permanent adversaries. What executive authorities label as necessary freedom often manifests as oppression for ordinary citizens, just as unchecked individual license can destabilize public order.
Unless this balance is codified through transparent, enduring institutions, Bangladesh will remain trapped in a destructive cycle of rebellion and repression. Without a clear contract, liberty will remain a fleeting mirage, forever chased and never secured.
—
Brig Gen AF Jaglul Ahmed, ndc, psc, PhD (Retd) contributes to national dailies. He can be reached at jagglulahmed@gmail.com