Opinion
In Muslim-majority societies, nationalism seldom evolves in isolation from religion. Bangladesh illustrates this reality clearly. Islam in the country has functioned less as a rigid constitutional framework and more as a form of social legitimacy—embedded in everyday political language, symbolism, and voter behavior. While nationalist parties often seek to project secular credentials, electoral competition has repeatedly pushed them toward pragmatic engagement with religious forces. No political figure embodied this balancing act more consistently or effectively than Khaleda Zia.
Her legacy extends beyond holding office. Khaleda Zia’s most enduring contribution was her ability to design, stabilize, and preserve an ideologically uneven alliance between the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Jamaat-e-Islami across changing political environments—democratic openings, competitive elections, and later, an increasingly authoritarian state. With her passing, the durability of that alliance now faces serious uncertainty.
1991: coalition-building without ideological surrender
The 1991 parliamentary election, which followed the collapse of HM Ershad’s military rule, restored democratic governance in Bangladesh. BNP emerged as the leading party but lacked a parliamentary majority. Jamaat-e-Islami, though small in numbers, became decisive.
Khaleda Zia’s success that year lay not merely in securing Jamaat’s backing, but in doing so without allowing BNP’s political identity to be overtaken. Unlike ideological mergers seen in other regions, she preserved BNP’s nationalist and centrist posture while granting Jamaat recognition as a legitimate parliamentary actor. For Jamaat, this cooperation offered a pathway out of political isolation after years of being stigmatized for its role during the 1971 war.
This moment revealed Khaleda Zia’s governing instinct: accommodation without capitulation. Religious sentiment was acknowledged, but not elevated to the status of state doctrine.
From convenience to coalition: the four-party experiment
As political polarization intensified in the late 1990s—driven largely by the Awami League’s dominance of the liberation-war narrative—Khaleda Zia recalibrated her strategy. Tactical cooperation was no longer enough. What emerged was a structured counter-alliance.
Ahead of the 2001 election, the four-party alliance brought together BNP, Jamaat-e-Islami, Islami Oikya Jote, and a faction of the Jatiya Party. This coalition was not merely electoral; it was an attempt to consolidate nationalist and conservative forces into a coherent governing alternative.
The strategy paid off handsomely. The alliance secured a decisive victory, and Jamaat entered government for the first time since independence. Yet Khaleda Zia carefully maintained institutional control. BNP retained authority over the state’s core levers, while Jamaat was incorporated without being allowed to dominate. The presence of Jamaat ministers—particularly Nizami and Mujahid—also introduced a disciplinary dynamic within the cabinet, reinforcing administrative order in unexpected ways.
Underlying this approach was a clear assumption: political participation moderates ideological extremism when it is bound by parliamentary responsibility.
Governing differences: containment over confrontation
The 2001–2006 coalition was far from frictionless. Disagreements arose over education policy, cultural expression, and international image. Khaleda Zia functioned as the central arbiter, preventing these tensions from escalating into political breakdown.
Her formula was consistent: visibility without veto power, inclusion without ideological dominance. This reassured conservative voters while keeping centrist and culturally Muslim constituencies within the BNP fold. It also challenged the Awami League’s narrative that secular symbolism alone could ensure international credibility or minority protection.
The broader lesson was pragmatic—governability in Bangladesh rests less on ideological rigidity than on managing perceptions across diverse constituencies.
After 2009: alliance as resistance
The political context changed dramatically following Sheikh Hasina’s return to power. Through a mix of electoral manipulation, institutional control, and legal pressure, opposition space steadily shrank. Jamaat was deregistered, its senior leadership imprisoned or executed. BNP faced mass cases, arrests, and enforced marginalization.
Under these conditions, Khaleda Zia expanded the alliance framework rather than retreating from it. What eventually became a 12-party opposition front was no longer about electoral victory alone—it was about political survival. This broader resistance structure later contributed to the momentum behind the July 2024 uprising.
During this period, Khaleda’s leadership was quieter but strategically decisive. Despite pressure from multiple quarters, she refused to sever ties with Jamaat as a precondition for political rehabilitation. Her reasoning was clear: abandoning Jamaat would fracture the opposition, weaken grassroots morale, and validate an exclusionary authoritarian order. The relationship evolved into a coalition defined less by ideology than by shared repression.
The Khaleda Zia method
Her management of the BNP–Jamaat relationship followed four unwritten rules:
-Reciprocal legitimacy – neither party publicly challenged the other’s right to participate in politics.
-Deliberate silence – contentious historical and theological disputes were intentionally sidelined.
-Minimum common program – democratic restoration and civil liberties replaced ideological maximalism.
-Personal authority – Khaleda Zia’s stature absorbed internal resistance within BNP itself.
This framework relied heavily on her credibility—earned through electoral victories, political sacrifice, and imprisonment. Without it, the alliance would have struggled to endure.
After Khaleda Zia: a coalition without a center
Signs of strain were already visible during her prolonged illness. With her passing, those tensions have sharpened. Several fault lines now threaten the relationship:
-A generational shift within BNP that prioritizes global perception
-Jamaat’s own search for broader political partnerships
-Lingering resentment over unequal burdens during years of repression
-The absence of a leader with comparable moral authority
Cooperation may persist in tactical form, but the patience, trust, and emotional cohesion that once sustained the alliance are likely to erode.
Khaleda Zia’s historical importance lies not only in her years as prime minister, but in her capacity to translate Bangladesh’s socio-religious realities into workable political arrangements. She neither dismissed Islam’s public role nor allowed nationalism to be overtaken by religious absolutism. Under her stewardship, an alliance evolved—from necessity, to strategy, to resistance.
Whether that legacy can survive without her remains uncertain. What remains undeniable is the lesson she leaves behind: in Bangladesh, political legitimacy is built not by excluding faith from public life, but by containing it within democratic discipline.
The writer is the Chairman of the Media and Liaison Committee of the FBCCI Anti-Discrimination Reform Council
