Quickpost | Editorial
Bangladesh today stands at a stage where crisis no longer needs separate explanation. It is visible—in the market, in employment, in state institutions, in everyday conversations. This crisis is not the result of a single incident. It is the cumulative outcome of years of policy deviation, absence of accountability, and the contraction of the political process.
In this reality, the question of leadership is not a political luxury; it is a question of the state’s survival. And at the center of that question, the name that inevitably emerges is Tarique Rahman.
This is not a sudden emotional reaction. It is the sum of past experience, present reality, and future possibility.
Why the state is now searching not just for “change,” but for “direction”
Bangladesh’s crisis cannot be explained simply by a change of power. The real question is—how will the state be governed. How will decisions be made. To whom will accountability belong. By what rules will the economy operate. On what framework will institutions survive.
For a long time, the country has passed through a system where power became centralized, but responsibility was never decentralized. The language of development was heard, but the burden of development was carried by ordinary people. It is within this duality that trust has eroded.
In this context, the central political question has become—who can untangle this structural deadlock.
BNP’s 31-point agenda: not crisis management, but a blueprint for state reconstruction
In the recent electoral context, the BNP’s declared 31-point agenda is not merely a list of promises. It is, in essence, an alternative philosophy of state governance. What is clear within these points is a focus not on power, but on strengthening institutions.
This framework speaks of bringing the economy, administration, judiciary, and electoral system under a coherent structure. In particular, restoring discipline in the banking sector, ending political shelter for loan defaulters, returning to a production-oriented economy, and placing social security on a realistic foundation directly respond to the present crisis.
Implementing these points requires political will—and political will does not come from slogans. It comes from leadership vision.
Past experience: a different memory of development and stability
There was a time in Bangladesh’s political history when growth, investment, and social mobility moved forward together. That experience was not flawless, but its direction was clear—the economy would run by rules, and institutions would function through process.
Tarique Rahman was connected to that policy trajectory. There was criticism, there were controversies, but a structural approach to governing the state was visible then. In today’s reality, that comparison alone is forcing people to ask—how far have we drifted.
The present crisis and the inevitability of leadership
Today’s crisis in Bangladesh is not only economic. It is a crisis of political trust, administrative credibility, and international relations. To emerge from this multidimensional pressure, leadership is needed that does not deny the crisis, but acknowledges it.
What is most discussed about Tarique Rahman’s politics is this—he speaks of change from within the structure. The language of rebuilding the state is heard more in his discourse than the language of capturing power. This is precisely why many see him as the “only realistic alternative.”
Because in the present reality, no other leadership demonstrates this level of political acceptability, organizational capacity, and state-level blueprint simultaneously.
Why the phrase “the only way” emerges
This phrase may sound emotional. But reality often demands hard language.
Bangladesh today has very limited options.
Stagnation means long-term erosion.
Instability means uncertainty.
Beyond these two lies only one path—structural reform, and the political force capable of implementing it.
In this reality, the discussion centered on Tarique Rahman is not personality worship. It is a calculation—political, economic, and institutional.
An editorial is not a court verdict. It is an interpretation of its time.
And today’s interpretation of Bangladesh suggests that overcoming the crisis requires not just a new face, but a new direction. And the leadership in which that direction’s political continuity, experience, and structural clarity are most visible is Tarique Rahman.
This interpretation may be proven wrong. History always leaves room for that.
But in the present reality, it is not an interpretation that can be ignored.
