The July student uprising and the recent events in the political context of Bangladesh have caused deep concern and hope among the people of the country. Especially with this spontaneous movement of a coup d’état and the subsequent reality, many are worried whether radical change will come to the state. Or there is much disagreement about the extent to which desirable changes are possible. In this context, when we discuss a spontaneous movement and its results, such a coup does not guarantee radical ideological change. Rather, such movements can bring about temporary change, but long-term radical change or established structural change is often absent.
Spontaneous movements are usually born out of immediate public reactions to social, economic, or political grievances. They are often sparked by public frustration or disillusionment but are not the result of long-term, organized planning. In Bangladesh, these types of movements often arise in response to political injustices, corruption, post-election violence, or widespread dissatisfaction with government policies.
At their core, these movements represent the people’s accumulated anger. However, a key limitation is that spontaneous movements frequently lack structured leadership and a clear political direction. This often leads to a loss of momentum before any significant, long-term objectives can be achieved.
There has been much discussion about the political environment during Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s regime, with concerns about limitations on democratic practices and political freedoms. Hasina’s government was overthrown by a spontaneous movement, it would likely not be because of a well-formed ideological push, but rather a reactionary expression of popular discontent.
The major issue with spontaneous movements is their lack of ideological coherence. Unlike ideological movements, which are built on strong political philosophies and can sustain leadership and long-term planning, spontaneous movements tend to be fragmented. They are more about momentary dissatisfaction than about a consistent political vision.
Should the Hasina regime end through such a movement, it is unlikely to result in lasting structural change. Without a strong ideological foundation, the new leadership that emerges could quickly find itself mired in the same frustrations and challenges that plagued its predecessor. People’s expectations, which are often high during such uprisings, may soon turn into disappointment.
One common feature of spontaneous movements is the high public expectations they generate in their early stages. People often hope that a single movement or coup will result in significant, positive changes. However, when these movements fail to achieve their objectives—often due to a lack of organized leadership or a unifying vision—these high hopes can quickly turn into disappointment.
In the case of Bangladesh, many of the current movements lack a clear and cohesive leadership structure. While people want change, there is little consensus on what that change should look like or how it can be achieved. This absence of a clear path forward often results in unsatisfactory outcomes, leading to further disillusionment.
While spontaneous movements can bring about short-term political shifts, they are rarely capable of achieving deep, structural reforms. In Bangladesh, even if a spontaneous uprising led to the fall of the Hasina government, the new leadership that might emerge from such a movement would likely face the same political and administrative hurdles as its predecessors. Without a strong ideological foundation or a clear, well-organized strategy, these new leaders would likely find it difficult to enact real change.
Radical transformation can only happen when movements are grounded in strong ideological principles and supported by well-organized leadership. Such changes require more than political leadership; they also necessitate a significant cultural and social shift. Spontaneous movements, being reactive and temporary, generally do not have the capability to bring about such profound changes.
While spontaneous movements may succeed in bringing about political transitions in Bangladesh, are they capable of fostering genuine, long-lasting change? A closer look at the current political landscape suggests that they are not. Spontaneous movements tend to destabilize political structures without addressing the underlying social, economic, or political challenges that drive discontent.
For Bangladesh to see meaningful reform, a more organized and ideologically driven movement will be required. Such a movement would need to go beyond the immediate goals of removing a particular government or leader and work towards a broader vision for the future—one that addresses the root causes of political dysfunction, economic inequality, and social unrest.
Without such a vision, spontaneous movements are likely to result in further political instability rather than long-term progress. The future of Bangladesh’s political landscape will depend on the emergence of well-organized movements that are built on solid ideological foundations and have a clear plan for governance.
While coups and political upheavals driven by spontaneous movements are not new in Bangladesh, they rarely result in radical, lasting transformations of the state. The fall of Sheikh Hasina’s regime, which was driven by a spontaneous movement, would not necessarily bring about the deep structural changes that many hope for. Instead, the lack of coherent leadership and a unifying vision would likely lead to frustration and disillusionment among the population.
To bring about true radical change in Bangladesh, more is needed than just spontaneous uprisings. The country requires well-organized, ideologically grounded movements that can offer a comprehensive political vision and can address the country’s deep-seated social, political, and economic challenges. Only through such efforts can Bangladesh hope to break free from the limitations of its current political system and achieve meaningful progress for its people.
Author: Mamun Kabir, Columnist