Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
Bangladesh saw its biggest political shift in years. In the February 2026 elections, the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) took over 208 seats, ending Sheikh Hasina’s long run with the Awami League in a record-breaking win.
At the same time, voters approved the “July National Charter” in a referendum. This move officially exalted the reforms of Muhammad Yunus’s interim government in the constitution. Even with a 60% turnout signalling a fresh start, simply changing leaders and updating the rulebook doesn’t mean the work of building a lasting democracy is finished.
Swapping leaders and rewriting the rules isn’t the same as building a lasting democracy. The July Charter is definitely ambitious. It introduces a 100-seat upper house based on vote share, term limits for the Prime Minister, more power for the opposition, and better representation for women.
On paper, these reforms are a big deal. They finally tackle the core issues Bangladeshis have faced since 1971, specifically the problem of one party or one leader having too much control. The real question, though, isn’t what the charter promises. The question is whether these institutions will actually restrain whoever is in power.
Take the proposed upper house. It can balance out a “winner-takes-all” system. But it only works if that chamber has actual powers. If it can’t block unlawful acts or hold the government accountable, it’s just a symbolic gesture rather than a real check on power.
The same goes for term limits. They’re meant to stop leaders from staying forever, but they only matter if leaders actually follow the rules. Otherwise, the same inner circles and loyalty networks just end up running things from the shadows. Rewriting the constitution is basically just a starting point.
Bangladesh’s politics have always been more about powerful personalities than strong institutions. Replacing one party with another doesn’t magically fix the system or eliminate deep-rooted political favours. The real test is whether the courts and the civil service can finally stand on their own and stay neutral, no matter who is in charge.
South Asia has seen these democratic tests before. In 2015, Sri Lanka passed the 19th Amendment to limit presidential power and restore balance. It felt like a victory for the people, but the 2018 crisis and the 2022 economic collapse proved those safeguards were fragile. A constitution is only as strong as the people running the country. When leaders ignore the spirit of the law, the whole system falls apart.
By contrast, Indonesia shows that a solid democracy grows from habit rather than a quick redesign. After the fall of the Suharto government in 1998, the country shifted power away from the centre, strengthened its courts, and allowed an independent commission to run fair elections. The real success wasn’t a single event. It was years of different leaders actually respecting court rulings and losing elections gracefully. By letting these institutions do their jobs even when it was politically painful, Indonesia showed that stability is built through practice, not just paperwork.
Pakistan shows why elections don’t always equal power. Since 2008, they’ve held three general elections and swapped governments, which looks great on paper. But behind the scenes, the real power hasn’t shifted. The military still keeps a close watch on civilian leaders. Between prime ministers being pushed out early and courts constantly interfering in politics, it’s clear elected officials aren’t actually running the show when it comes to security or foreign policy.
Bangladesh now sits somewhere between these trajectories. The July Charter lays out a blueprint for redistributing formal authority. But implementation will determine everything. Will the upper house exercise real oversight? Will expanded presidential powers create balance – or friction? Will the opposition-led committees genuinely scrutinise executives?
Peaceful power shifts and major reforms are huge wins for Bangladesh, but they don’t automatically make a healthy democracy. True progress only happens when those in power actually accept limits on their authority. Without those checks, winning an election just becomes a license to do whatever you want until the next vote.
If the BNP government respects these new rules and lets the courts and parliament work independently, the country might finally find stability. But if the old system of political favours just moves into this new framework, it’s just a change of face, not a change of system. For now, these reforms are more of a “wish list” than a reality. Elections provide the spark, but without accountability, that energy fades fast once the polls close.
A democratic reset only works if the system becomes stronger than the people in charge. Bangladesh’s future depends on whether this new charter actually fixes the foundation or if the same old institutional problems are just hiding behind a new face.
Author Bio:
Williamkery Gaddam, research scholar and political analyst.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.