In any way, a poor family in need of food will not benefit from knowing which politician has charged another with having secret contacts with the Awami League. Similarly, an unemployed graduate sees no opportunity in such allegations. A patient in need of treatment will not be relieved by politicians competing to show each other their disloyalty. However, allegations of secret contacts between the Awami League and some political forces continue to threaten the work of government and opposition. Both sides try to prove that only they can protect the democratic future of Bangladesh and at the same time indicate that their opponent is assisting in undermining it. In this case, both sides may harm themselves, neglecting their citizens' needs.

Recent exchanges reflect this trend. In his October 20 press conference, Prime Minister Tarique Rahman accused the deposed administration and certain members of the opposition of plotting against the stability of Bangladesh based on information regarding money being sent from overseas. In response, Jamaat-e-Islami Secretary General Mia Golam Porwar accused the government of creating circumstances that would let the Awami League return to power by making its own mistakes.

On October 23, Hamidur Rahman Azad, coordinator of the Jamaat-backed alliance, denied claims that an informal understanding had been reached with the Awami League and called for the intelligence behind them to be revealed. Instead, he alleged BNP misconduct. In response, BNP Acting Secretary General Ruhul Kabir Rizvi said his party had enough evidence of an understanding between Jamaat and the Awami League. Claims that are backed up by credible evidence can be investigated. But when claims become part of political discourse, investigating them becomes little more than entertainment. Aristotle's theory of persuasion helps explain the consequences.

Logos: Where Is the Evidence?

Aristotle outlined three modes of persuasion: logos, the reasoning of an argument; ethos, the speaker's credibility; and pathos, the listeners' emotional state. All three modes should be used to promote responsible political communication and make right judgments.

When we look at the question through the prism of logos, it is clear: what the evidence really proves.

Prior political affiliation does not prove a current conspiracy. Political support from people who previously supported another party does not imply an agreement between party leaders. Advocacy for reconciliation does not automatically mean participation in any wrongdoing. On the other hand, using the word “intelligence” does not necessarily verify a claim. This matters because political discourse often turns a specific observation into a general conclusion. If someone previously worked with a competitor, the discussion’s logic suggests they are now part of a conspiracy. If credible proof exists of illegal financing, violence, or coordination, the best way to handle the case is through an unbiased investigation and disclosure wherever legally permissible. Any sensitive information may have to be protected, but accountability cannot be achieved without an agency that can put it to the test. The public should demand the same evidentiary standard from government and opposition. An accusation cannot become more credible simply because one agrees with the accuser.

Ethos: Credibility Cannot Be Borrowed from an Opponent’s Failures

Ethos concerns the audience’s judgment of a speaker’s character and reliability. Leaders build it through competence, consistency, sound judgment, and care for those they represent.

Repeatedly declaring an opponent unpatriotic may energize supporters. It does little to demonstrate an ability to govern. Likewise, exposing administrative failures can be a legitimate opposition function, but opposition credibility also depends on presenting workable alternatives.

Both sides therefore risk losing. The government weakens its authority when criticism is too readily portrayed as conspiracy. Citizens may begin to suspect that allegations are being used to avoid difficult questions about performance. But even further discredits the opposition's arguments is the possibility of a baseless counteraccusation, which makes them look less interested in reforming the policies and more concerned about winning over the government.

One thing is clear: their tasks are different. The government holds executive power and controls its finances and management. This means that its obligation to show results and exercise restraint is even greater. The government deserves respect for its management and its administration, while the opposition deserves respect for its ability to improve both.

Pathos: Honor Public Suffering Without Exploiting It

Pathos explains the weight of accusations of authoritarianism, betrayal, foreign interference, and the Awami League. The hardships experienced under the repression and the sacrifices made during the uprising of 2024 cannot be downplayed in the context of political discourse. The public’s calls for justice need to be respected. So do people’s fears that a shift in power will bring some improvement. However, people can use emotions for different purposes.

Emotions can be harnessed into justice, reform, and transparency in pursuit of a country’s best interests. Emotions can also be used to cast compromise as treachery and disagreement as treason. The latter is politically expedient because fear is easy to mobilize. Its long-term consequences are toxic. Citizens start viewing any discussions between politicians from different parties with suspicion. Politicians begin avoiding cooperation even though it would benefit their citizens. While the daily hardships of emotions are ignored: the degradation of unemployment, the unpredictability of medical costs, the financial pressure on families, and the fear of violence.

The politics that can understand national pain must also be understood.

The Five Canons: How Accusation Becomes Political Theatre

The five ancient canons of rhetoric, inventio, disposition, elocutio, memoria, and pronunciation, offer another approach to identifying what is wrong. These canons belong to the larger classical tradition, but to the Roman, not Aristotle’s five-stage process. Analyzing political communication in Bangladesh through these canons shows how such communication attracts attention but solves nothing.

Invention: the discovery of arguments and proof.
In classic rhetoric, "invention" refers to the process of searching for available arguments and does not imply creating information. Responsible leaders base their work on verifiable facts and explore various explanations. Suspicion politics works the other way round: the desired charge is formulated in advance, and pieces of history are put around it.

Arrangement: deciding what comes first.
A speech's structure signals what a political party deems important. When betrayal dominates the beginning, middle, and end of a speech, other issues like employment, health, education, and reform take a backseat. A better structure should define an issue, provide evidence, analyze alternatives, and establish accountability.

Style: language that will mold judgment.
Words such as "traitor," "agent," and "conspirator" end discussion before the issue is even addressed. Precise language lets the public distinguish between an issue of policy and malfeasance, and between malfeasance and crime. Overstatement erases that distinction.

Memory: crafting a message and, more broadly, history.
The canon was about remembering things well enough to present them well. Memory in politics today also raises the issue of selective history. Political parties easily remember their opponents' compromises but forget their own.

Delivery: making the message persuasive.
Voice, gesture, medium, and timing can make an allegation memorable. Media and social media can do the same. But good presentation cannot compensate for weak evidence. Measure political discourse according to the evidence an allegation provides and the actions that follow.

In this way, the canons identify a core issue: leaders may become more proficient in communicating conflict without being sufficiently responsible for solving it.

Both Sides Spend; Citizens Bear the Opportunity Cost

The cost of this fight goes well beyond what is invested in promotion, activities, and politics. With unaudited accounts, it is irresponsible to quantify financial losses. The opportunity cost is more evident. Political leaders’ time is limited. Attention in parliament is limited. Government administration capacity and citizens' patience are limited. Each round of allegations that is repeated takes away the attention that could have been given to issues of market regulation, employment policies, hospital preparedness, education, corruption, or security. Political capital is also squandered. Government supporters could feel disillusioned by the broken promise of improvement. Opposition supporters could feel disillusioned by the broken promise of accountability through denunciation and alternative solutions. It certainly does not mean that nothing useful is being done. In fact, Rizvi's comments on October 24th were made in the context of a program raising awareness about dengue, and he even mentioned the government's efforts to prevent dengue.

Who Benefits? The Awami League’s Opportunity

The Awami League will be able to benefit politically through confrontation between its opponents without itself being engaged in that confrontation. The dynamics are simple. By constantly accusing others, the Awami League stays in the public spotlight. Public frustration with their leaders might make people more willing to listen to allegations that they failed to keep their pledges. These are potential benefits, not proof of a coordinated strategy or an inevitable political return. Nevertheless, leaders who claim to oppose authoritarian restoration should recognize the danger. They may help rehabilitate their rival’s narrative if citizens increasingly associate the present political order with quarreling, insecurity, and disappointment. The strongest answer to an authoritarian legacy is accountable government, credible justice, and public confidence that political change has improved ordinary life.

India’s Possible Advantage and Bangladesh’s Strategic Cost

India's position merits similar consideration. The ties between Hasina and the Awami League and Hasina’s continued stay in India are sources of contention in the bilateral equation. According to reports by Reuters in August, the Bangladeshi government was upset with Hasina’s political activities from Indian soil. At the same time, India said it did not support any privately arranged event of hers. It would take more than mere proof to argue that India is behind the present interactions among Bangladeshi groups. A simpler strategic logic makes more sense: fragmentation at home can weaken Bangladesh’s negotiating power and create openings for its big neighbor. When parties disagree on principles of sovereignty, transparency, and mutual advantage, others have the leeway to deal with them individually. A politically divided elite struggles to maintain pressure to scrutinize these deals or support its negotiating position. Any political energy spent criticizing domestic rivals for being too close to India will undermine efforts to assess these deals and support Bangladesh's interests. But instability does not necessarily serve India's interests, either in terms of national security or business. The real concern is conditional: If Bangladesh's institutions and cooperation are undermined, undue influence becomes feasible. Sovereignty must be safeguarded through strong institutions, clear agreements, and good negotiations. Patriotic sentiments need help here.

Cooperation Without Surrendering Accountability

Government and opposition need no agreement on every ideological or constitutional question to cooperate on urgent public needs. They may have done so on the prices of basic necessities, labor policies, health emergency preparedness, and research on violence and corruption. Parliamentary committees can evaluate the policies and research findings, and the reports can be used to showcase promises, resources, and accomplishments. First, the parties should agree on a common agenda for household expenditures, employment, public health, public safety, and fair governance. Ministers would be expected to enforce the agenda, while the opposition would review it and offer alternatives. Such cooperation has to accommodate dissent. It should provide accountability for any past abuse. Working together to fight dengue fever or control the market should not come at the expense of justice. Political maturity means knowing when to compete, when to investigate, and when to cooperate.

July’s Sacrifices Must Not Become Currency for Partisan Conflict

Perhaps the greatest harm in these debates comes from the threat these exchanges pose to the moral legacy of the July rebellion. Students, youth, and citizens have been challenged by authoritarian power at great personal cost. Children have been among those killed in clashes. UN Human Rights Office has assessed that possibly up to 1,400 may have died in the period between July 15 and August 5, 2024, with children making up approximately 12-13 percent of deaths.

It is difficult to think of these deaths without feeling a profound responsibility toward the families left behind and toward the future that has been robbed of these lives forever. Their sacrifice imposes a duty on all who now hold political power. Freedom from authoritarianism should be more than just changing who is in control. It must be freedom from arbitrariness and tyranny; it must offer young people a future and a fair, impartial administration of justice.

Relying on July rhetoric and ignoring the nature of false accusations helps both the government and the opposition turn a shared issue into a matter of ownership. Neither can claim ownership of the students' heroism nor of the sorrow of those grieving. During the uprising, people of various political convictions united in their efforts. Hence, neither party should monopolize the revolt's aftermath as a partisan narrative. For those who also saw the uprising as an act of defiance against Indian dominance and a response to external support, there is only one obligation: to ensure the country can exercise its independence and accountability. Repeated allegations of conspiracy, without concrete evidence, undermine the basis for doing that: transparent diplomacy, scrutiny of treaties, and organizations capable of protecting the country's interests.

Aristotle’s theory suggests that, in this way, all three parts of persuasion, logos, ethos, and pathos, are violated.

This is more than mere frustration and disappointment. Young people who gambled everything on politics may now believe that established politicians have absorbed their sacrifice into yet another struggle for power. Such feelings may undermine democratic processes and open the way for authoritarian rhetoric of order without control. Observance of July means conducting investigations related to murders, treating and rehabilitating the injured, supporting the families of victims, protecting those who dissent peacefully, and taking steps to address the underlying problems of the people. The government must implement policies, while the opposition must demand accountability from the government and suggest alternatives.  The memory of July needs politics worthy of the fight for freedom. Nelson Mandela said about the duties after the liberation: "to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others." This should be the motto of Bangladesh's politics.

Let Performance Become the Argument

Bangladesh's leadership must ask itself what it gets out of the new accusation cycle. If it delivers credible evidence and accountability, then it makes sense. If not, then the whole process achieves nothing. According to Aristotle, the question is tough: let logos require evidence, ethos require trustworthiness, and pathos connect leadership to the pain others suffer. The Awami League may manipulate disappointment. External forces may manipulate division. But Bangladesh's leaders must deny them the chance by making democratic governance work. The strongest proof of patriotism is that it is a better-served country. When leaders compete to prove that Bangladeshis can finally start winning.