February 17, 2025
DHAKA – Are we witnessing a clash between the worldview and values of Gen-Z and the pre-millennial generations in our journey towards democracy? If so, what are the implications as the interim government completes six months of its tenure and begins consultations on the various reform commissions’ recommendations? How will the aim of building a broad consensus on reforms and charting the roadmap for the next phase of the journey work out?
Political parties of different stripes, in slightly varying tones, have been impatiently clamouring for a parliamentary election as early as possible after “essential reforms” so that the winners can take control of the government. The mention of “essential reforms” appears to be a nod to public demand for reform in public institutions and services. Noticeably, the political class is not asking for nationwide local government elections that could restore many essential local government services and let citizens engage in a political process. Nor do they ask for the election of a constituent assembly to settle constitutional and governance structure issues.
What appears to have exasperated the old-line political class is that young students succeeded where they had failed. The student-led uprising toppled the authoritarian regime, which had appeared to be invincible and set to continue indefinitely. The political parties’ 15-year struggle to unseat it had not brought the masses behind them as the students’ movement did—no doubt helped by the unprecedented brutality of the regime in repressing the protesters.
Success has many claimants to paternity, while failure is an orphan. The political parties claim that they had prepared the ground over the years and that the student movement was merely the spark that ignited the fire. There is truth in this narrative, but the fact remains that the students were the vanguard at the critical stage. The political parties are reluctant to admit that their earlier efforts did not bring success. For that matter, they have not shown any contrition for their collective responsibility, beyond that of the Awami League, for the faltering democratic journey of the country since liberation.
Now, the youngsters have embarked on a campaign to reach out to the people in preparation for forming a new political party. They aim to change the political culture of intolerance, division, polarisation, and the absence of accountability that has dominated the political scene since the birth of Bangladesh. This initiative has provoked ambivalent, if not outright negative reactions from some political parties.
Political old-timers say they have no objection to a new party of the young, but many betray their nervousness by denigrating this effort, sometimes offering contradictory reasoning. Three lines of argument are deployed by them: students must remain students, they are too inexperienced to handle politics, and a king’s party is not acceptable. How can immature youngsters make policies and run the country? Since three of the “student coordinators” of the movement are in the government, a new party of young people would be a “king’s party” that would compromise the interim government’s neutrality vis-à-vis the national election.
The generational divide is evident in the public dialogue on political transition, the performance of the interim government, and what should happen next. The known faces in the talk-show circuit in electronic media and columnists and commentators in print media—mostly pre-millennials and millennials—betray their generational bias.
The talking heads on television are often the protagonists of one or another existing political party, along with some familiar faces from the media and civil society. Largely outnumbered by their older counterparts, the young representatives of the July-August movement, when invited to participate, are usually articulate in their arguments and clear in expressing their goals and plans. Often, the effort in the shows to offer diversity of views ends up being an argument between the young and the rest.
The young speakers generally take the position that the sacrifice of July-August was not just to have an election and hand over the government to the winning political party/parties without at least beginning a process of political and institutional reforms and forging a broadly unified vision for the journey towards democracy. The other side, with minor variations, argues that the reform agenda can and should be handled by a “political” government (meaning themselves). They also assert that the interim government has been inept in addressing immediate day-to-day problems, such as improving law and order and controlling prices. They claim that the people want an early parliamentary election (but presumably not a local government election). They insist that political parties are in touch with the people and speak for them. It is evident that they are not in touch with the Gen-Z population, which makes up at least a third of the country’s voters.
The anchors of talk shows are reluctant to challenge the often vacuous and self-serving assertions of political parties and older-generation pundits. The anchors themselves often appear sympathetic to the positions taken by the elders. Columnists, editorial writers in print media, and op-ed article writers, beyond rhetorical words about harnessing the energy and idealism of youth in nation-building, are at best ambivalent about the position presented by the young and the role they may play in shaping the country’s future.
Prof Muhammad Yunus has always upheld the role of young people in his vision for development and his expectations for the future of Bangladesh. He described the students as his “employer” because they invited and persuaded him to take on the task of heading the interim government. Introducing Mahfuj Alam, one of the three youth representatives in the advisory council, to former US President Bill Clinton at an event in New York, Yunus described Mahfuj as the “mastermind” of the movement. I doubt that anyone in the audience took it literally to mean that Mahfuj singlehandedly orchestrated the fall of the Hasina regime. Yunus, in his usual effusive and generous way, had used a rhetorical expression. Talk shows and social media in Bangladesh were abuzz with discussions about Yunus being too deferential and submissive to students.
In an interview with The Financial Times at the World Economic Forum in Davos, speaking about events in Bangladesh, Yunus spoke of young participants in the anti-discrimination movement reaching out to the masses, preparing to form a political party of their own. He thought this might help bring about a much-needed change in the political culture of Bangladesh. Old-school politicians pounced on Yunus for being partial to the presumptive new party and questioned the interim government’s ability to run a national election impartially. They ignore the work underway to empower the election commission to conduct elections independently, without government interference.
All stakeholders—Gen-Z and the rest—talk about the need for unity to move forward in our democratic journey. All seem to agree that a unified vision of basic goals and the steps to be taken is necessary. But with the divergent views of the young and the old regarding priorities and processes, how can these differences be reconciled? A realistic aim may be to forge a common understanding of the rules of the game regarding dialogue and, as much as possible, to reconcile the diverging visions by agreeing on a minimum common agenda of reforms that the interim government could initiate and that a future elected government could continue.
As discussions on the various reform commissions begin, the focus may be on the rules of engagement for all stakeholders—political parties, civil society, Gen-Z, and anti-discrimination activists—and the minimum common agenda for reforms. A part of this process would be the preparation of the July proclamation. The interim government seems eager to be involved, presumably to help minimise the generational divide, in formulating the July proclamation as a testament to the July-August uprising.
Nationwide local government elections at the union and upazila levels would allow citizens to engage in the political process and improve local services, which have become nonfunctional since the disbanding of local councils.
An agreement to hold an election for a constituent assembly within three months would start the process of settling constitutional and state structure questions with citizen participation. The adoption of a constitution would then pave the way for parliamentary elections, with its structure and character (bicameral, proportional representation, women’s representation, etc) determined as prescribed in the newly adopted constitution. This step-by-step process would allow the necessary time and deliberation for the far-reaching reforms envisioned, helping to bridge the generational divide.