The politics of the phantom enemy

Political conflicts are very often fought through narratives that define who counts as the real adversary. Sometimes those narratives become so deeply embedded that they continue to shape political behaviour even when they no longer correspond to political reality.

Recent remarks by political figures have brought that phenomenon into focus. Golam Maula Rony has spoken of a future uprising against Jamaat, while BNP lawmaker Fazlur Rahman argued that Jamaat effectively runs the country. 

Such statements invite an obvious question… how can a movement be directed against a party that does not hold executive power?

The calculation appears straightforward. A party that is not governing cannot ordinarily be the object of an uprising aimed at removing a government. Yet the persistence of such rhetoric suggests that the language is serving a purpose beyond describing institutional reality.

Political labels often outlive political circumstances. Once they become embedded in public discourse, they cease to function merely as descriptions and instead become symbols through which broader political struggles are interpreted.

One explanation is that certain political narratives continue to organize Bangladesh's politics into a simplified binary. Within that framework, political competition is understood more of a contest among multiple parties than as an enduring struggle between two imagined poles. 

As a consequence, parties that occupy government outside that binary may still be interpreted through the lens of older rivalries.

Whether or not one accepts that interpretation, it helps explain why accusations directed at Jamaat frequently emerge even when criticism is clearly aimed at the policies or actions of another political actor. The label becomes a description of institutional power.

That distinction matters because language shapes political perception. If political actors are consistently described through inherited labels rather than their actual institutional position, public debate risks becoming detached from observable political realities. 

The discussion shifts from who governs to who represents a familiar symbolic adversary.

Such framing has practical consequences. Political campaigns can be directed at a sitting government while rhetorically targeting another political force altogether. Supporters may interpret slogans literally, while political strategists employ them more broadly as symbols intended to mobilize existing loyalties.

This dynamic is not unique to Bangladesh. Around the world, political movements frequently invoke historical rivals, ideological labels or inherited identities long after the underlying political landscape has changed.

Familiar narratives often prove more durable than changing electoral realities because they provide supporters with a stable framework through which to interpret events.

The danger is that once political language becomes detached from political reality, meaningful debate becomes increasingly difficult. Discussions about governance and institutional reform or democratic accountability risk being replaced by contests over symbolic identities. 

Political actors become defined less by what they do than by what others choose to call them.

For democratic politics, this presents a challenge. Democracies function best when citizens evaluate governments according to their performance, policies and exercise of power. 

If inherited narratives dominate public discourse, accountability may become obscured by symbolism. Political labels then cease to clarify debate and instead begin to substitute for it.

This does not mean that ideological disagreements disappear or that historical conflicts lose relevance. Bangladesh's political history continues to shape contemporary alignments, and no serious observer would deny the enduring influence of those legacies. 

But historical narratives should illuminate present realities rather than replace them.

The essential question is therefore not which label is attached to which party. It is whether political language accurately reflects the distribution of power at a given moment. If it does not, public discourse risks becoming an argument about imagined political landscapes rather than existing ones.

Healthy democratic competition depends on recognising political actors as they are, not as inherited narratives require them to be. Governments should be criticised for their own decisions, oppositions judged by their own conduct and political rivals identified according to present realities instead of symbolic associations.

Ultimately, the most influential political opponent is not always the one that governs or commands the largest parliamentary presence. Sometimes it is the one that exists primarily as an idea…a convenient reference point around which broader political narratives are organised. 

Such a "phantom enemy" can become a powerful rhetorical device, but it should not be mistaken for an accurate map of political reality.

The quality of democratic debate depends on the willingness of political actors and citizens alike to distinguish between symbolism and substance. Without that distinction, the loudest political narratives may come to overshadow the realities they claim to describe.

—

Md Ashraf Aziz Ishrak Fahim is academically trained across Thailand, England, and Qatar, bringing together political, philosophical, and theological perspectives. He writes on the intersection of politics, society, gender, religion, and culture in Bangladesh and beyond