The interim government assumed responsibility during a period of profound economic fragility, weak state institutions, and a precarious law-and-order situation. However, this reality was paralleled by a rare sense of national unity born from the desire for change. The July mass uprising was not the result of any single group’s movement; it was a collective uprising and rejection of autocratic rule by society at large. At that time, three core pillars were paramount: strengthening national unity, establishing justice, and ensuring a democratic transition.
History will impartially assess the achievements and failures of the interim government. While they managed to stabilize macroeconomic volatility and navigate regional geopolitical tensions without major disasters, their tenure was marked by significant limitations. A primary shortcoming was the reliance on bureaucratic decision-making rather than fostering national unity. By failing to engage the public as partners in governance, the transformative potential of the July uprising was often reduced to narrow administrative terminology, with reform discussions confined to a small circle of experts and the closed doors of the ‘Jamuna’ residence.
Furthermore, the movement suffered from debates over ownership, which weakened its inclusive spirit. The approach toward youth empowerment was also flawed; rather than nurturing their potential, the youth were often presented with confusing messages, and power became a matter of greed rather than responsibility. Educational institutions, which needed a fresh start, continued to face neglect. The interim government’s economic focus remained strictly on stabilization, leaving fundamental questions regarding economic justice, employment, and the creation of new growth drivers largely unaddressed.
The evaluation of the interim government must extend beyond administrative steps to how well they captured the social energy of July. The uprising was meant to redefine the relationship between society and the state. As we look at the current political landscape, a newly elected government has taken charge. While it is too early to pass a final judgment on their few months in power, the public is eager for tangible results. Initial signs of normalcy, such as the establishment of a functional parliament and active political engagement, are positive, but the path to sustainable growth remains complex.
A critical challenge for the new administration is the quality of appointments. Bangladesh’s crisis is often one of implementation rather than policy, and success depends on placing qualified individuals in the right roles, moving away from the ‘our people’ culture. Education remains a major concern, as the trend of students disengaging from formal learning, which began during the interim period, continues to persist. The tragic death of hundreds of children due to measles highlights a severe failure in state and policy management, exacerbated by a lack of attention and the influence of small, opaque interest groups.
Economic indicators show that growth has slowed to the 2-percent range, a rare and concerning phenomenon for Bangladesh. While growth rates are not the only metric for success, they are vital. The nation remains overly reliant on ready-made garments and remittances, a dependency that is risky in the long term. To foster new economic sectors, creative industries, and technology, the state must rethink its fundamental approach to governance. Furthermore, the secret trade agreement signed with the United States toward the end of the interim government’s term has raised questions about potential inequality, which may limit the new government’s policy space unless addressed through parliamentary and legal processes.
We must be cautious with terms like ‘potential’ and ‘resilience.’ Bangladesh has heard about its potential for years; it only becomes meaningful when realized. Similarly, the concept of ‘resilience’—or the ability to survive—needs a fresh perspective. The focus should shift from mere survival to active development. The role of civil society is also crucial, yet it has faced numerous obstacles, including social polarization and the negative impacts of online discourse. Despite these barriers, there is hope. History shows that change in Bangladesh is not solely dependent on state policy but also on citizen-led initiatives, such as the safe road movement and community-based educational efforts.
However, citizen activism is under pressure. During the interim government, we witnessed incidents of harassment against women occurring with little intervention, despite women being a major force in the July movement. The extent to which this situation has improved remains a subject of debate. Moreover, Bangladesh must redefine its position on the international stage. We must shed the mentality of viewing ourselves as a small nation; a country of nearly 180 million people is not small. Our national interests must be the core of our foreign policy.
Ultimately, we must return to the primary expectations of July: the transformation of the character of the state and society. This includes strengthening national unity, establishing justice, ensuring human dignity, and building an accountable state. Two years later, the accounting of gains and losses is necessary, but we must look beyond the narrow question of who succeeded or failed. The more significant question is how much of the social energy, self-confidence, and aspiration for change that was ignited in July has been preserved and carried forward.
The interim government’s tendency to prioritize foreign stakeholders over domestic constituents created a disconnect that the current administration must rectify. True governance requires listening to the diverse voices of the nation’s various sectors. The path forward demands a departure from the exclusionary practices of the past and a commitment to the inclusive, democratic, and just society that the people of Bangladesh demanded during the historic July uprising.
As we evaluate the progress made since the uprising, it is clear that the journey is far from over. The institutional reforms required to sustain the momentum of July are extensive and require a long-term commitment. The focus must remain on building systems that outlast individual governments, ensuring that the sacrifices made during the movement translate into lasting structural improvements for every citizen of the country.
Hossein Zillur Rahman, a former advisor to the caretaker government, emphasizes that the true measure of the uprising’s success lies in the sustained engagement of the populace and the state’s ability to remain responsive to the needs of its people, rather than retreating into the comfort of bureaucratic inertia or narrow political interests.