With institutions under siege and the legacy of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman under attack, the parallels with the French Revolution become starkly apparent

We have had an uprising in the neighbouring country of Bangladesh. Despite an interim government led by a Nobel laureate economist and entrepreneur Muhammad Yunus in place, the rule of the 'hoi polloi' continues. Mass power is forcing a 'purge' of the various institutions of the state of what are believed to be compradors of the ousted regime.

Even the judiciary has not been spared. It's unlikely that we would have stability returning to the nascent nation founded by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman following liberation from Pakistan in 1971.Mujibur Rahman's legacy, politically represented by his daughter Sheikh Hasina, the ousted Prime Minister of Bangladesh, is today under attack.

Though there are those in the revolution mass and leadership, who would want to distinguish Sheikh's legacy from Hasina's regime. But in the current situation of social turmoil, a manifestation of an ideological bent could be catastrophic.Public uprisings the world over, especially in the post-colonial democracies of the 20th and the 21st centuries, have drawn inspiration from the French Revolution of the 18th century.

The revolution which started with the symbolic fall of Bastille and the establishment of the Estates General of 1789, ended with the coup of 18 Brumaire in November 1799 and the formation of the French Consulate with the military under the leadership of Napolean Bonaparte capturing power.

The French Revolution was driven by the ideas of the fundamental principles of liberal democracy. Its causes are generally agreed to be a combination of social, political, and economic factors, which the ruling establishment led by Emperor Louis XVI was unable to manage. What spurred the fall was a financial crisis and widespread social distress.The fall of Louis XVI saw radical reforms including the abolition of feudalism and a declaration of rights. But this did not bring an end to political instability.

The next decade was dominated by the struggle for political control, worsened by economic depression.To overcome the crisis the revolutionaries formed the Committee of Public Safety, which unleashed a reign of terror in which about 16,000 people were executed.

Finally in 1799 following a military coup, Napoleon Bonaparte came to seize power marking the end of the revolution. The quick recall of the events of the French Revolution was to establish the fact that insurrection doesn’t generally guarantee one thing, the stability of governance.

This is best seen in the case of Bangladesh.

Ever since its birth, the country has witnessed numerous coups and uprisings with Sheikh Hasina’s 15-year regime from 2009-2024 being an exception to the general rule. This period was, till the fall of the government, seen as a period of not only stable authority but also economic growth.Then what brought the fall? Conspiracy theorists are blaming the American Deep State and the Chinese interest but no uprising can happen without local discontent. After coming to power in 2009 through a free, fair, and credible election, Sheikh Hasina subsequently presided over largely non-participative and controversial polls on three occasions — 2014, 2018, and 2024. She appeared to be near-invincible, but muzzling democracy was an increasing indication of her growing political frailty.There isn’t a doubt that Hasina’s rule saw noteworthy economic achievements. Under her Bangladesh transformed from one of the world’s poorest nations into one of the fastest-growing economies in the region, even outperforming India.

The country’s per capita income tripled in a decade, and the World Bank estimated that over 25 million people were lifted out of poverty in the last 20 years. But then why the downfall, such anger against a regime that was bringing prosperity to the nation? The answer probably lies in the fact that economic progress alone cannot sustain a leader’s popularity in the face of eroding democratic values and civil liberties. Democracy, like the proverbial ‘jinn’, cannot be put back in the bottle once unleashed with whatever power at hand.

The Indian sub-continent, which the Americans decided to call South Asia, is the best example of the sinews of democracy. Across the five nations of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka, authoritarian leaders have met nemesis. India is the only exception, where the change of power has always been through a democratic process and sans violence.

The Indian leadership of different political and ideological hues have maintained the delicate balance between socio-economic progress and democratic values. Political setbacks have happened when a government has been seen to be promoting crony capitalism, nepotism, high-handedness and corruption, in that order. Such perceptions have overshadowed acts of major social welfare and economic and development successes.

Muhammad Yunus becomes the second economist in the sub-continent to head a government after Dr Manmohan Singh. While Manmohan Singh has been credited with steering the country out of financial turmoil, expectations from Yunus is to take his nation out of a social and political tumult. The challenges for Yunus is equal in measure to what the Indian economist faced. Dr Manmohan Singh is largely seen to be successful in overcoming the challenge, would Yunus too succeed? history would judge.

(The writer is an author and president, the Centre for Reforms, Development & Justice; views are personal)