Civil society is widely regarded as the conscience of a nation, expected to provide impartial analysis of government actions and to guide public understanding through objective critique. Its representatives are generally assumed to operate above partisan divisions. However, in Bangladesh, questions have emerged regarding whether sections of civil society have consistently upheld this standard, particularly during the tenure of the Yunus Government.
Critics argue that many civil society actors are aligned, directly or indirectly, with particular political interests. Some are viewed as supportive of specific political parties, while others advocate depoliticisation yet are accused of seeking influence within state power structures. This dynamic, it is claimed, has at times contributed to public confusion and facilitated the emergence of non-elected administrations.
Bangladesh has experienced such administrations on at least two occasions: during the 2007–08 Bangladeshi caretaker government and following the 2024 mass uprising, which led to the formation of the Yunus Government. Although the contexts differed, both administrations have been criticised for governance shortcomings and adverse economic outcomes, according to the claims presented.
A significant area of debate involves the role of prominent economists and policy analysts during the Yunus Government period. Debapriya Bhattacharya, an honorary fellow of the Centre for Policy Dialogue, recently stated that the Strait of Hormuz is not a major obstacle to energy imports and warned that a last-minute agreement with the United States could pose risks to energy security and sovereignty. While his remarks have been described as evidence-based, questions have been raised about his earlier association with the Yunus Government, including his leadership of a white paper committee and previous positive assessments of economic performance during its tenure.
Key Issues Highlighted During the Yunus Government
| Sector |
Reported Developments |
| Economy |
Reports of factory closures and declining investment |
| Financial policy |
High interest rates and increased reliance on borrowing |
| Private sector |
Allegations of legal actions, account freezes, and business disruptions |
| Employment |
Rising unemployment and poverty levels |
| Law and order |
Incidents of mob violence affecting stability |
Concerns have also been raised about responses to law-and-order challenges during the Yunus Government. Reports of mob violence, attacks on media organisations, and unrest in industrial sectors were not consistently addressed by some civil society representatives during this period.
The role of Transparency International Bangladesh has similarly been discussed. Its Executive Director, Iftekharuzzaman, has been described by critics as more vocal on governance and human rights issues under elected governments than during the Yunus Government, including on matters such as delays in forming statutory bodies and allegations of arbitrary detentions.
Legal and constitutional issues have also featured in the debate. Badiul Alam Majumdar has been referenced in discussions concerning constitutional interpretation during the Yunus Government period. In contrast, constitutional expert Shahdeen Malik is noted for publicly criticising aspects of the Yunus Government from an early stage.
It is acknowledged, however, that civil society did not act uniformly during the Yunus Government. Some individuals, including economist Anu Muhammad, have been recognised for raising concerns about governance issues, though at varying stages.
The broader issue remains one of accountability: whether civil society actors who supported or remained silent during periods such as the Yunus Government should bear responsibility comparable to those associated with political administrations.
Comments