---

One of the biggest accomplishments for Bangladesh after the July uprising was the victory of the women's national football team at SAFF Women's Championship. Bangladesh has been the defending champion at the SAFF championship since 2022. Therefore, one can imagine the irony when international news emerged of religious fundamentalists protesting and vandalising venues to cancel women's football matches in the country, deeming them "un-Islamic." This kind of cruel juxtaposition serves as a microcosm of the broader culture war in Bangladesh.

Perhaps the biggest mistake one can make when analysing Bangladeshi culture is to assume that it is homogenous across the country. But the fact is it is a diverse nation. From region to region, there is profound variation in language, food, festivities, lifestyle, and values. Even in Dhaka, there is often a world of difference between those who travel by expressways and those who rely on local buses.

Before the fall of the Awami League regime, three cohesive elements in the culture were common among the majority of Bangladesh's disparate groups: the political identity of Bangladeshi nationalism, cultural values of Islam, and a general disdain for the mafia-style fascism that defined Bangladeshi politics—made worse by more than a decade of Awami League's kleptocratic rule. With the fall of a tyrant and the perception that the unifying cause has been accomplished, our differences have once again surfaced, inviting debate and reconciliation—something impossible under autocratic rule.

Only in a democracy can people with diverse value systems band together and find representation for their voices and cultures. However, democracy is not a perfect system, and one of its greatest flaws is what scholars term the "tyranny of the majority."

To rule based on numbers rather than rightness or excellence is the essence of the tyranny of the majority, a concept explored by influential 19th century scholars such as John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville. In simpler terms, democracy, if unchecked, can lead to the oppression of minorities by the majority, prioritising sheer numbers over truth, justice or merit. For this reason, in a proper democracy, counter-majoritarian institutions must exist to limit the majority's ability to repress minorities and stifle political competition. That is why democratic constitutions include a bill of rights and supermajority clauses, designed to counterbalance the tyranny of the majority. Needless to say, such institutions in Bangladesh are not functioning as intended.

Now, the mass uprising that led to the previous regime's ouster in August has opened the floodgates of a culture war. This is not necessarily a bad thing. All civilisations and societies undergo internal cultural conflicts. In modern terms, ideological groupings within the culture war tend to align along variations of the left-right political spectrum. Political scientists define the left wing as being characterised by an emphasis on freedom, equality, diversity, rights, progress, reform, and internationalism, while the right wing prioritises authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reactionism, and nationalism.

From this perspective, one cannot help but realise that the people of Bangladesh align with ideologies from both the left and right. In essence, the average Bangladeshi holds a moderate or centrist political identity. At most, one might describe the majority as culturally religious and centre-right. Some might argue that the people have been detached from politics for so long that they have yet to fully form their political identities.

That is now changing with the rise of a new right wing in Bangladesh. This force remained dormant for years, as the previous government labelled it in many ways. Due to the political role played by groups like Jamaat-e-Islami during the Liberation War, the religious right wing has carried a permanent stain. However, this has now shifted as the cultural left carries its own albatross around the neck in the form of the ousted Awami League. Right-wing populists have begun branding the entire left wing as enablers of fascism. Rhetorical attacks on progressive institutions—accusing them of supporting Awami League authoritarianism and being pro-India—are now central to the right-wing strategy for power.

Furthermore, the right wing has cultivated various institutions with distinct identities over time. Whether through charity foundations or political entities, these organisations represent different facets of the right wing. Now, they have gained prominence, elevated by their support for the student-led mass uprising and by the severe lack of political representation from the left. There is no inherent issue with a culture war as long as the playing field is level. But is that really the case? The playing field has never been level in Bangladesh. It certainly was not level before, as the right wing was brutally suppressed through state-sponsored violence, extrajudicial killings, and enforced disappearances.

The state is still reeling from the uprising, and the police and civil administration have yet to fully regain control. Various extreme right-wing groups are exploiting the situation to advance their own agendas—whether through religiously motivated attacks on Indigenous communities in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, the vandalism of mazars (shrines), or the recent attack on the venue of a women's football match. It is now evident that within the right wing, there exist violent elements willing to resort to undemocratic means to achieve their goals. The question remains: are the rising stars of Bangladesh's new right wing aware that within their ranks lie elements of misogyny, racism, and bigotry that no text can justify? Will the democrats ever manage to rally and recover to defend their own values?

Going forward, there needs to be a broad understanding among the people of Bangladesh that one's values and beliefs do not necessarily make them bad. There will always be differences of opinion among people, and such differences need to be resolved in a democratic manner under the purview of the law. Neither the left nor the right of the country's political identity spectrum should be considered evil, or as the "enemy of the people"—as some populists are trying to peddle. That is not to say that people cannot make mistakes. Historically, people have made grave mistakes—mistakes that have cost lives and livelihoods. But if we are to accomplish truly inclusive democracy, then we need to own up to our mistakes first. Both the right and left need to surgically cut out the evil parts in themselves before coming to the discussion table. Only then can there be proper debate and reconciliation.

Zillur Rahman is executive director at the Centre for Governance Studies (CGS) and a television talk show host. His X handle is @zillur.

This article was originally published on The Daily Star.
Views in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect CGS policy.