Interim government of Bangladesh consolidates its authority.

Over a month ago, on Saturday, May 10th, the interim government of Bangladesh took its most brazen step yet in consolidating its authority. It amended the Anti-Terrorism Act to formally ban the Awami League, the country’s largest political party. The move, made in defiance of domestic and international concern, signals a deepening pattern in which the regime, increasingly entranced by its unexpected power, willingly suppresses dissent, rewrites laws, and guts institutions in the likely pursuit of its own permanence.

An early move in the interim government’s reign was to introduce a new Cyber Security Ordinance. While the ordinance dropped clauses which allowed for warrantless arrests, international groups raised the alarm over fears that the revisions did not go far enough to protect citizens from the pitfalls of heightened surveillance. The worry was that the government had given itself “disproportionate authority” to access personal data with “minimal opportunity for judicial redress.” A smart move if you also happen to be the government that’s comfortable with a wholesale ban on an oppositional political party.

Throughout its process of issuing ordinances, the government has repeatedly avoided and ignored consultation from stakeholders. Human Rights Watch, PEN International, Tech Global Institute, and others have all expressed concern that the interim government’s actions have shirked a responsible approach to governance. The groups note that those in power have often failed to “provide clear justifications for changes between drafts or explanations of the outcome of the earlier consultations”.

This practice of avoiding any meaningful consultation, then drafting and rubber-stamping any ordinance suppressing fundamental rights, extends from individuals to businesses. Another recent ordinance has given the Bank of Bangladesh and the interim government full authority over the country’s private, state-owned and foreign corporate banks.

With this power in hand, the Bank of Bangladesh can appoint its own administrator over a bank and wrest complete control to transfer the shares, assets and liabilities to a state-owned bank. What’s more, under the new ordinance, officials can be held personally liable. A culture of fear among banking officials may start to seed itself, causing a slowdown in procedures. Concerns obviously abound, not least of all that the conditions under which the Bank of Bangladesh can take control often fall outside of a bank’s responsibility. An increase in loan defaults can be caused by unexpected natural disasters or extended periods of financial hardship; something for which the country is, worryingly, on track.

Ordinances are not the only weapon in the interim government’s arsenal for wreaking havoc among banks and businesses. The Bangladesh Securities and Exchange Commission (BSEC) has frequently installed individuals to the boards of private companies. In early 2025, one of the world’s leading pharmaceutical manufacturers, Beximco Pharma, had nine appointees placed on its board by the BSEC. The reason? Allegations – still unproven – of fraud were levied against Beximco’s Non-Executive Vice-Chairman, Salman Rahman, who served as an advisor to the country’s former Prime Minister.

Will any of this even stick? Given the complex constitutional framework surrounding Bangladesh’s interim government, the legal footing of the current spate of ordinances is admittedly shaky. A precedent set by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh in 2008 established that a caretaker government can only issue ordinances relating to elections. In its ruling, the Court noted that, in Bangladesh, “All powers in the republic belong to the people.” And yet, here we are.

Taken as a whole, these actions represent a clear and cynical strategy designed to serve the interim government’s authority. What’s astonishing here is that this authority exists almost entirely by chance; its power was granted by the ouster of an unpopular prime minister and under conditions in which the interim government had promised a return to democratic rule.

Now, elections have been pushed back, and – as the ban on the Awami League showed – the Interim Government can easily be swayed by public opinion. It’s not the recipe for democratic success many had imagined. As the interim government fails on its promised delivery of democracy, it will find itself having to further entrench its authority just to maintain control and appease or oppress the growing chorus of voices still calling for change.

Photo by Bornil Amin on Unsplash

Share this article: