De-feudalising Dhaka

Liberalism’s historical genesis was less an emancipation of the common individual than a structural realignment of power. Born from the terminal decay of European feudalism during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it was shaped by an intellectual coalition spanning Machiavelli and Hobbes to Calvin and Bacon. 

Yet, the political order that emerged did not dismantle class dominance; it merely replaced a landed aristocracy with an ascendant capitalist elite. This new class seized the state apparatus to institutionalize its own material interests. It reconstituted jurisprudence, ethics, theology, and the sciences, erecting a secular metaphysics tailored to capital accumulation and technological utility. 

Liberalism became the intellectual engine of a new economic paradigm designed primarily to serve its architects.

Post-independence Bangladesh inherited a structural mirror of this compromised liberal order. Having shed its former colonial identity to assert sovereign nationhood, the country adopted formal mechanisms of statecraft that were poorly anchored in its native socio-economic terrain. 

Decades of governance yielded no profound philosophical departure from traditional patronage, no transformative shift in legal doctrine, and no cultural renaissance to reorder national psychology. Instead, Bangladesh became integrated into a globalized liberal framework that produced familiar domestic outcomes: the cultivation of a narrow elite that captured state resources, alongside institutional practices designed for extraction. 

Over time, national politics devolved into a pseudo-feudal system. Absent robust public contestation, a ruling oligarchy operated with systemic impunity.

The uprising of July 2024 fundamentally fractured this equilibrium. Driven by a politically awakened youth, the mass mobilization shattered the entrenched consensus, demanding a comprehensive reset of the state. 

This movement signals the emergence of a distinct post-February 2026 political reality—a version of neo-liberalism defined not by rigid dogma, but by the ethos of a generation hostile to authoritarian overreach.

This new political mood threatens the traditional mechanics of Bangladeshi governance. The historic practice of imposing unexamined regulations from above, alongside the deregulation of key sectors to benefit a nexus of bankers, merchants, and well-connected manufacturers, faces an increasingly assertive citizenry. 

The discretionary exploitation of legal frameworks is no longer tacitly tolerated. With a heightened capacity for rapid mobilization, this youth cohort has restricted the effective boundaries of state coercion. Any attempt by regional or global powers to exert undue leverage risks provoking fresh domestic backlash.

For the administration elected in February 2026, the resulting political landscape presents significant governance challenges. The core difficulty lies in reconciling a hyper-vigilant populace with institutional stability. Translating the disruptive energy of the July uprising into a constructive civil force requires establishing a rule-of-law framework that binds both the state and its citizens. 

The government must curb pervasive institutional corruption, enforce fiscal compliance without stifling private enterprise, and induce an entrenched bureaucracy to relinquish its historical privileges.

Furthermore, the new administration must navigate a restructured public sphere. Power must flow upward rather than descend from executive decree. The legislature will face heightened judicial oversight, while political actors must operate under continuous scrutiny from both legacy media and decentralized digital platforms. 

For their part, media institutions must transition from instruments of power validation to independent mechanisms of public accountability. Externally, economic vulnerabilities will test the government’s capacity to maintain policy autonomy amid competing geopolitical pressures.

This emerging paradigm marks a sharp departure from orthodox neoliberalism. Traditional doctrine—characterized by minimal state intervention, aggressive privatization, fiscal austerity at the expense of social protection, and the uncritical opening of domestic markets—is fundamentally at odds with current popular demands. 

The political imperatives following the July movement require an inverted approach: the subordination of elite interests to broader social utility, state capacity oriented toward public benefit, and economic policies engineered to redistribute concentrated wealth.

A stable political equilibrium will not form automatically. The emerging order will require an inclusive political ideology—one that respects youth-led activism and engages global ideas while accommodating both religious and secular worldviews. Legislative enactments alone will prove insufficient if they remain vulnerable to reversal by subsequent administrations. 

The enduring legacy of the July movement depends on whether these demands induce a permanent structural transformation in the philosophy and practice of Bangladeshi statecraft.

—

Brig Gen AF Jaglul Ahmed, ndc, psc, PhD (Retd) contributes to national dailies. He can be reached at jagglulahmed@gmail.com