Why Sheikh Hasina Remains Indispensable in Global Politics —
And Why Muhammad Yunus Is Rapidly Losing Relevance
By Dastagir Jahangir
Bangladesh’s political transition in August 2024 was presented by its architects as a “new dawn.” A student-led uprising, the fall of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, and the installation of Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus as head of an army- and Islamist-backed interim government were expected—at least by some—to excite the Western democratic bloc.
Instead, the international mood has shifted in the opposite direction.
While Sheikh Hasina remains a central reference point in almost every diplomatic conversation about Bangladesh’s future, the Yunus administration is increasingly associated with democratic backsliding, extrajudicial violence, minority persecution, and the empowerment of Islamist networks. The contrast is stark, and the geopolitical implications profound.
Below is a deeper look at why global actors still treat Sheikh Hasina as essential, while Yunus is losing credibility at remarkable speed.
Undemocratic Power Grab and the Crisis of Legitimacy
The interim government led by Muhammad Yunus did not emerge from any constitutional process. It was installed through a combination of military intervention, mob pressure, and the collapse of state institutions during the July–August unrest. The structure of the new administration resembles classic “legal coups” seen in parts of Africa and Latin America—regime change wrapped in a veneer of morality without democratic authorization.
The absence of elections, the refusal to set a clear timeline for democratic restoration, and the reliance on street forces aligned with Islamist groups have eroded the government’s legitimacy from day one.
Global policymakers may tolerate transitional regimes, but not those that dismantle constitutional order while empowering hardline elements.
A State Without Accountability: Killings, Immunity Orders, and Forced Silence
Human rights organizations have documented widespread killings in the days following the fall of the elected government.
- At least 318 peoplewere killed between August 5–8, 2024, according to Ain o Salish Kendra.
- The Bangladesh Hindu, Buddhist, Christian Unity Council recorded 2,010 violent incidents—including murder, rape, and arson—between August 4–20.
Despite this alarming backdrop, the Yunus administration introduced legal protection for security forces, shielding them from prosecution. This “immunity order” signals to the world that accountability is not a priority. International observers—including rights groups, Western diplomats, and UN officials—have warned that Bangladesh is sliding into a culture of impunity that resembles the darkest years of authoritarian rule in the region.
The message is clear: when a government tolerates or enables such violence, it loses moral credibility abroad.
Rise of Islamist Forces Under the Interim Government
One of the most troubling features of the Yunus administration is its reliance—direct or indirect—on Islamist factions. Groups previously contained or politically marginalized under Sheikh Hasina have resurfaced with new confidence.
In the aftermath of the July–August upheaval:
- Minority communities suffered nationwide attacks.
- Temples, churches, and homes were burned.
- Hindu, Buddhist, and Christian families in multiple districts fled their neighborhoods.
Human rights monitoring groups documented more than 2,184 anti-minority attacks by the end of 2024. In many cases, assailants acted in the presence of law enforcement or with the tacit support of local mobs aligned with pro-interim authorities.
At the same time, Jamaat-e-Islami and other Islamist networks pushed aggressively for a complete political ban on the Awami League. Instead of resisting this dangerous agenda, the administration has shown signs of political negotiation with them.
To global observers—especially India, the EU, and the United States—this trajectory raises alarms about long-term stability and security in South Asia.
Crackdown on Opposition and the Outlawing of the Awami League
In a move unprecedented in Bangladesh’s political history, the Yunus government banned all political activities of the Awami League, the country’s founding party and principal secular democratic force. Using counter-terrorism laws to justify the ban, the administration crossed a line that even authoritarian regimes hesitate to cross.
The decision sparked concerns in Washington, New Delhi, Brussels, and Tokyo about:
- the future of multi-party democracy,
- the risk of extremist groups filling the political vacuum,
- and the legitimacy of any future electoral process.
A Bangladesh without the Awami League is, in global strategic terms, a Bangladesh without a constitutional anchor.
Sheikh Hasina: Proven Leadership in Peace, Stability, and Global Responsibility
Despite criticisms during her long tenure, Sheikh Hasina’s governance record holds enduring weight in global diplomacy. Three pillars stand out.
1. Peacemaker: The Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord
Hasina delivered one of South Asia’s most significant peace agreements in 1997 by ending a decades-long insurgency in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. The accord introduced:
- regional autonomy,
- local self-governance,
- and a framework for coexistence between indigenous communities and settlers.
International peacebuilding institutions still cite the CHT Accord as a model for conflict resolution in ethnically divided states.
Yunus has no comparable peace achievement.
2. Humanitarian Leadership: Shelter for One Million Rohingya
Under Hasina’s guidance, Bangladesh opened its borders to nearly one million Rohingya refugees fleeing genocide in Myanmar.
Bangladesh is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, yet Hasina prioritized humanity over politics. Her government coordinated the world’s largest refugee settlement operations in Cox’s Bazar and later in Bhasan Char, gaining global recognition as a humanitarian leader.
Yunus’s administration, by contrast, has struggled even to maintain law-and-order within Bangladesh, let alone demonstrate humanitarian leadership.
3. Development and Infrastructure Transformation
Over the past 15 years, Bangladesh underwent one of the most dramatic development transformations in South Asia:
- Padma Bridge
- Metrorail
- Karnaphuli Tunnel
- Highway expansions and power sector expansion
- Women’s empowerment and poverty reduction initiatives
These achievements reshaped Bangladesh’s global economic profile. They also created diplomatic leverage for the country in partnerships with India, China, Japan, the World Bank, and the United States.
Hasina’s ability to balance competing global powers—while avoiding entanglement—gave Bangladesh a stable geopolitical identity.
The interim government lacks both this leverage and this credibility.
International Perception: Why the World Still Trusts Hasina
Global actors operate based on predictability, legitimacy, and long-term partnerships. Sheikh Hasina offers:
- a proven governance model,
- an organized political party with deep grassroots roots,
- ideological commitment to secularism and regional stability,
- and the capacity to negotiate with global powers from a position of legitimacy.
By contrast, Yunus’s administration is viewed as:
- military-backed,
- Islamist-pressured,
- institutionally fragile,
- and lacking democratic mandate.
Even sympathetic governments are increasingly distancing themselves, worried about instability, extremist resurgence, and the erosion of human rights.
The message from global capitals is unambiguous:
Bangladesh needs constitutional order, predictable leadership, and democratic legitimacy—qualities associated with Sheikh Hasina, not with the current interim regime.
Conclusion: The Hasina Factor vs. The Yunus Decline
In the geopolitical calculus of South Asia:
- Sheikh Hasina represents stability, peacebuilding, humanitarian responsibility, and secular democratic continuity.
- Muhammad Yunus represents an uncertain interim rule marred by violence, legal overreach, Islamist resurgence, and administrative disarray.
This is why, despite her current exile, Sheikh Hasina remains indispensable in global diplomatic thinking, while Yunus’s relevance is diminishing at a pace faster than even his supporters expected.
The long-term question for Bangladesh now is not whether the world will choose between the two—but how long it can tolerate the instability produced by a regime that lacks electoral mandate, constitutional legitimacy, and control over rising extremist forces.
Global politics is signaling clearly:
Bangladesh’s sustainable future lies not in experiments with unelected power, but in the return of stable, democratic, and secular governance—something only an elected system, and historically Sheikh Hasina’s leadership, has been able to guarantee.
