“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” — Thomas Jefferson
May 10, 2025, was a historic turning point in the journey of the nation. Led by the moral vision of Nobel Laureate and Chief Adviser Dr. Muhammad Yunus, the interim government made a bold and complete ban on the political activities of the Awami League (AL). Having once been a leading factor in the country’s development, the AL had in the past sixteen years degenerated into an institution characterized by misuse of authority, widespread corruption, democratic degeneration, and abuse of executive power. This was not a revenge call, but a constitutionally informed response to national degeneration necessary to defend against further sacrilegious erosion of democratic values.
The government action was the culmination of escalating popular resentment and demands for accountability. The July–August 2024 revolution, led by student activism, civil society, and reformist political parties, mounted the events that would come to be a national reckoning. Growing public pressure and collective demands by opposition parties like Jamaat-e-Islami and smaller political groups forced the caretaker cabinet into action. Though the movement did not start by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), it subsequently ratified the move. In statements issued by BNP’s Acting Chairman Tareq Rahman and Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir, the party acknowledged that Awami League had “lost its moral and constitutional right to participate in democratic politics.” They held the opinions of 180 million citizens—betrayed by rigged elections, brutal attacks, and looting of state institutions.
As Dr. Yunus powerfully asserted during the announcement, “There comes a time in the life of a nation when silence becomes complicity. We cannot allow history to repeat itself.” Banning the Awami League placed Bangladesh in the ranks of other democracies that have endured and broken down dictatorial regimes in the name of upholding democratic rule—from Germany’s campaign of denazification to political cleansing following military dictatorships in Latin America and Asia.
This legislation was more than prohibiting a political party. It was a break from an oppressive past, and a symbolic transition toward a democratic future accountable and inclusive. It ended one chapter and opened the door to a new bold one—one where the promise of the founding vision of Bangladesh might finally be achieved at last.
The purpose of this article is to blow open the reason behind why this history was created, analyze the regional and global examples that justify it, and theorize about what the consequences of this moment are for the political reawakening of Bangladesh. This wasn’t merely a ban; this was the decision of a nation craving closure on decades of democratic disappointment.
Historical Precedents: International Lessons in Securing Democracy
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” — George Santayana
The ban on political parties that subvert democratic norms, promote authoritarianism, or practice violence is not novel nor confined to any region of the world. Embattled democracies around the globe have resorted to banning or dissolving political parties that would exploit democratic institutions to dismantle them from within—a paradox that has been found necessary in upholding constitutional order.
In post-World War II Europe, this was legally encoded. Germany outlawed the National Socialist (Nazi) Party and, later, the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) under Article 21 of its Basic Law. The rationale was straightforward: parties that undermine free democratic order must not be permitted to participate in its processes. Italy followed suit after the fall of Mussolini, disbanding the Fascist Party and embedding democratic safeguards into its post-war political framework. France, in defense of republican values, banned extreme right-wing groups like Action Française for hate-mongering and anti-democratic violence. This doctrine of democratic self-defense has echoed well beyond Europe.
In Latin America, Brazil banned its neo-fascist Integralists Party in the 1930s and subsequently again repressed political groups linked to dictatorship and repression. Argentina, in its democratic transition during the 1980s, prohibited leftovers of Peronist groups and eventually prosecuted parties related to the military junta years. Political parties connected to paramilitaries have been excluded from elections in Colombia as a component of transitional justice initiatives to hold politicians responsible for past violence.
Asia has witnessed comparable instances. In post-war Japan, the militarist parties that were blamed for imperial expansion were prohibited under the U.S.-led occupation, making way for a pacifist constitutional order. South Korea disbanded the Unified Progressive Party (UPP) in 2014 for allegedly attempting to topple the democratic government—ruling that its ideologies were in direct conflict with national security. In the same vein, Thailand has occasionally dissolved political parties, such as the Thai Raksa Chart in 2019, for violating constitutional conventions or posing a risk to the monarchy and national harmony.
Even democratic India, widely acclaimed for its electoral resilience, has proscribed organizations such as the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and barred political parties based on militant separatism on grounds of risks to sovereignty and communal harmony.
These examples collectively articulate a universal truth: democracies must defend themselves against domestic subversion. Any political party that uses the rhetoric of democracy to consolidate power, suppress dissent, or codify violence forfeits legitimacy in a pluralistic order. Banning those types of parties is no reflection on democracy—it is, as political philosopher Karl Popper wrote in The Open Society and Its Enemies, an essential guard against “the paradox of tolerance,” whereby unlimited tolerance breeds intolerance and, ultimately, tyranny.
The prohibition of the Awami League in Bangladesh must be seen not as a politically driven act of vengeance but as a constitutional and historical necessity—a consequence shaped both by local circumstances and by precedents set by democracies around the globe. While there can be no question that the Awami League was at the heart of the nation’s creation—most notably under Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s leadership when he guided the people in 1971 to achieve independence—history is complex. The same party that embodied liberation deviated increasingly from its core principles, becoming a tool of authoritarianism, systematic suppression, and political exclusion.
The erosion of democratic institutions, wholesale human rights violations, censorship of the media, and the criminalization of opposition on a mass scale have marked the recent sixteen years of the Awami League government. The party’s descent into authoritarianism, particularly under Sheikh Hasina, alienated large segments of citizens who had long regarded it as the guardian of national aspirations. It was that widespread disgruntlement, added to revelations of rampant corruption, extrajudicial killings, the use of government institutions as weapons, and the growing cult of personality, that led to a national reckoning. The call for its disbandment came not from ideological differences but from a widespread belief that the party had turned into a threat to the very democracy that it helped bring about.
Banning a party with such historic credentials is never an easy decision. However, as most democratic states have demonstrated, including post-war Germany, Argentina, South Korea, and India, the survival of a republic typically depends on its ability to defend itself against internal decay. When a political party tries to utilize its past triumphs as an excuse for present-day tyranny, it becomes the responsibility of the state and its people to act in the best interest of future generations.
As Thomas Jefferson wisely noted, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” In this spirit, Bangladesh’s bold action to ban a party that betrayed its legacy is not a denial of its past—but a defense of its democratic future.
Awami League’s Record: A Legacy of Authoritarianism and Abuse
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” — Lord Acton
Under Sheikh Hasina’s leadership, Bangladesh witnessed the erosion of democratic institutions that had been unprecedented since its independence. The nation witnessed heavily rigged elections, imprisonment or disappearance of opposition politicians, politicization of the judiciary, and silencing of the press. The creation of extrajudicial detention centers like ‘Ainaghar,’ abuse of the Digital Security Act, and blanket censorship were not just abuses of power—they were systemic attempts at entrenching authoritarianism.
A comprehensive report published in February 2025 by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) documented severe abuses under the rule of the Awami League. The report stated that between July 2023 and January 2025, over 1,400 political protesters were killed, 13% of them children. The report further identified cases of torture, arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, and systematic assaults on opposition voices as crimes against humanity. OHCHR discovered that under AL rule, Bangladesh exhibited the traits of a captured state.
Additionally, in the judgment of independent financial watchdogs and international investigative bodies, upwards of $234 billion was illegally siphoned through corruption, money laundering, and offshore accounts by top-level AL leaders and family members. Electoral processes were altogether perverted, with reported cases of ballot box stuffing, voter intimidation, and military-style voter harassment during the 2014, 2018, and 2024 elections—each election roundly criticized by international observers.
These facts seal the argument in favor of the ban. The Awami League was no longer a democratic force but an authoritarian one clothed in the mantle of electoral legitimacy. Its continuance in politics was an existential threat to democratic revival, public accountability, and the rule of law in Bangladesh.
The Democratic Justification for the Ban
“The strongest defence of democracy is not neutrality, but exclusion of its enemies.” — Karl Popper
The Awami League ban is premised upon the universal principle of democratic self-defense. When a political party chronically employs the freedom of democracy to disable its very nature, strong measures become not only justified but mandatory. Bangladesh’s caretaker government, led by Nobel Laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus, has used international precedents—through Germany’s de-Nazification to Spain’s ban on terrorist-affiliated parties—to safeguard the republic against further erosion.
The Awami League, under Sheikh Hasina’s leadership, did not merely contest elections—it discredited them. It eroded judicial independence, politicized the bureaucracy, and institutionalized the abuse of power. Most regrettably, it cornered the information space of the country. State media and private media were either bullied or acquired, their editorial freedom sold for scripted subservience. Handpicked journalists and editors frequently participated in performative press conferences, reading out pre-vetted questions aimed to glorify Hasina and demonize her rivals—especially Nobel Laureate Dr. Yunus, whose integrity provided a dissonant moral counterpoint. Oppositional journalists were tracked, prosecuted, or disappeared under repressive legislation like the Digital Security Act. Rather than being the fourth estate, Bangladesh media during the Awami League regime became an extension of its propaganda machinery—mirroring the worst vices of illiberal regimes from Erdogan’s Turkey to Orbán’s Hungary.
Suppressing the Awami League, therefore, is political revenge but not constitutional necessity. It seeks to dismantle a political machinery built upon systemic terror and restore the prospect of genuine democratic competition. Primarily, it opens up political space for fresh actors, platforms, and parties—ones of service, ethics, and accountability rather than dynastic politics and authoritarianism.
Toward a New Political Order: A Roadmap for Inclusion
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” — Martin Luther King Jr.
The AL ban must be followed by a roadmap for democratic reconstruction and national reconciliation. Dr. Yunus has initiated a National Consensus Commission, accepting proposals from 38 political parties and civil society organizations. The July Charter, resulting from this exercise, will codify reforms so that no party or leader can monopolize power in the future.
This transitional moment offers Bangladesh an opportunity to restart its political culture—to shift from personality cults to policy-based platforms, from fear to freedom, and from autocracy to accountability. Banning the Awami League is not a terminus but the beginning of democratic revival.
A Reluctant but Principled Decision: Dr. Yunus and the Call for National Dialogue
“A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus, but a molder of consensus.” — Martin Luther King Jr.
From the start of his leadership, Chief Adviser and Nobel Laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus has emphasized the need for an inclusive national dialogue founded on peace, accountability, and constitutional order. In his initial days in office, Dr. Yunus publicly invited all political parties to participate in shaping a new democratic future for Bangladesh. Dr. Yunus envisioned an inclusive political process that would mend national cleavages through dialogue, not reprisal.
However, the sheer pressure from student movements, civil society, legal professionals, victim families, and even moderate political parties for accountability and justice brought about a turning point. As evidence mounted and international organizations, including the UN, issued damning reports on AL abuses, Dr. Yunus was compelled both by moral leadership and democratic necessity to act. Although his goal was to safeguard political pluralism, the depth and magnitude of Awami League’s authoritarian legacy made coexistence with democratic reconstruction impossible. The ban, therefore, is a sign not of deviation from democratic principles but of their protection. Dr. Yunus’s insistence here underscores his global reputation as a principled reformer—prioritizing justice over appeasement and national healing over political expediency.
Conclusion: A Necessary Break to Secure the Future
“A nation that forgets its past has no future.” — Winston Churchill
Bangladesh’s caretaker government has enacted a turning point in the country’s democratic evolution by banning the Awami League’s activities at this point. Far from being an act of vengeance, it is a well-considered, constitutionally grounded response to decades of institutionalized oppression, ballot box stuffing, economic exploitation, and institutional decay. Informed by history lessons and supported by international best practices in transitional justice, the ruling heralds a clean break from an era characterized by autocracy cloaked in democratic attire.
As with Germany’s post-war commitment to de-Nazification or South Korea’s judicial prohibition of anti-democratic political parties, Bangladesh has chosen to protect the integrity of its republic by isolating from politics those elements that consistently subverted it. This action, taken with national consensus and international observation, marks a watershed moment—not just in national politics but in South Asia’s democratic resilience.
This is a chapter not of closure but of creation. By banning a party that militarized the state against its own people, Bangladesh can now give birth to a new political culture—one founded on transparency, equity, and inclusion. As a symbol of moral governance, Dr. Muhammad Yunus has reminded us that democracy is not a destination but an ongoing, brave commitment to justice.
As Nelson Mandela once said, “There is no easy walk to freedom anywhere.” The path forward will indeed be difficult, but in choosing democratic renewal over political decay, Bangladesh has taken its boldest step forward yet.