Bangladeshis waking up to reality of interim government

What does a country on the brink of collapse of rule of law look like? For many it evokes images of anarchy and disorder on the street; tires burning, smashed windows, and roving gangs unleashed in the chaos. But what this fails to account for is that often the most insidious form of collapse in the rule of law comes in the shape of a government simply deciding it and its allies are no longer subservient to the same rules that govern wider society.

The protests that exploded in Bangladesh in July 2024 had all the hallmarks of a country on the brink of collapse. Protestors had taken to the streets in opposition to the then-government and as the violence and disorder increased, so too did their demands for a new way forward. As a power vacuum formed, a set of new leaders stepped in to fill the gap with ambitious claims about the country’s future. Two years later, whilst the violence on the streets has (mostly) ceased and the interim government is no longer in power, Bangladeshis are just now waking up to the reality that in many cases the interim government acted in its own interest, breaking the rule of law and setting a dangerous precedent for future governments.

A foundational role of modern governments is to uphold the legal bond between individuals and the state, giving rights, protections, and responsibilities while defining who has access in the form of citizenship. Equally important, is the fundamental right to renounce citizenship. It is deeply authoritarian to keep people beholden to a citizenship and there are very few countries that do so. Yet this is exactly what the Interim Government chose to do in the case of an international dispute involving one of the country’s top business groups, the S Alam Group.

Leading what lawyers for the Group called a “targeted campaign”, the Interim Government attempted to claw back billions of dollars it claimed, without evidence, were diverted out of the country. Faced with such an attack, the Group filed an international arbitration claim setting the stage for the drawn out legal battle in which Bangladesh would have to prove the allegations made against the group in a neutral, international setting.

In response, the Interim Government began seeding the rumour that they would instead dispute that the chairman of the Group had renounced his Bangladesh citizenship, and therefore attempt to get the case thrown out on a technicality despite their renunciation being accepted by the government at the time.

It was an incredible move and one which has put into stark relief the fundamental disrespect the Interim Government displayed for the rule of law and has worried commentators that the process of renunciation is being irreversibly politicised. Citizenship and the process of retaining or renouncing it has to be respected if any government wants to retain its legitimacy and ability to govern. Ruling over citizens who have no way to free themselves from your government is not democracy.

Speculation abounds but the leading explanation for why the Interim Government acted in this way is that they know they cannot win this case if they engage in good faith. The burden of proof for the government to win this case is extremely high and refusing to try and meet that suggests that the Bangladeshi government does not have enough credible evidence to prove their argument. As a result, it has chosen to grasp for an absurd hail mary, hoping that this will save their skin.

However, contesting the case in this manner has much broader implications for the social and business contracts in the country. Bangladeshi nationals capable of investing in the country’s potential will baulk at this approach and become even more hesitant to invest in the country when they realise that the government may go after them if the winds of popularity change and they fall out of favour. This lack of investment will be devastating to Bangladesh and its already kneecapped economy.

Under the Interim Government’s tenure, Bangladesh has spent the last two years battling a failing economy that has left people increasingly desperate. Inflation has outpaced wages continually, the country is facing fuel crises which have shut down universities and factors, and the country has been downgraded by a number of international ratings companies. There have been regular protests outside banks and mass panic withdrawals of deposits and as a result, the country has had to return to the World Bank, cap in hand, over and over again; the latest announcement was of the World Bank having to give the country $1.5 billion in June alone.

It is promising that the country’s new prime minister is urging people to move past cycles of retribution and vengeance, but this needs to apply to his government too. This desire for consensus-building will be essential to return economic confidence to the country, and can only be found if this government is willing to do the hard thing and uphold recognized national and international processes that are the hallmarks of contemporary, modern states.

Share this article: