Facilitating the legacy of civil movements is challenging for both organizers and the public trying to change established autocratic governments. One major challenge after such movements is gaining trust and support for the new political system among citizens and various groups, both locally and internationally.
To address this, it is essential to build legitimacy, create effective government structures, and develop a sense of ownership among the people. It is also important to engage with international organizations to get recognition and support for the transition process.
The main structural issue is the struggle for power and leadership that follows an autocratic regime's collapse. When a former government falls apart, it creates a power vacuum. This can cause different revolutionary groups to split and compete with one another, leading to ideological fragmentation within the movement spirit.
The worrying factor is that without unity, there may be internal conflicts or a worrying shift back to authoritarian rule, both of which run counter to the movement's short- and long-term goals.
Karl Marx posited that revolutions arise from the intrinsic contradictions and conflicts embedded within class structures, particularly the antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. As socio-economic inequalities intensify, the disenfranchised class mobilizes to dismantle the existing capitalist framework and establish a new socio-political paradigm.
Marx, in addition, argued that the inherent conflicts between social classes, notably between capitalists and workers, and the ensuing struggles for power, are fundamentally rooted in the unequal distribution of wealth and resources. This dynamic sets the stage for class consciousness to develop, ultimately driving revolutionary change in response to systemic oppression to avoid alienation from society.
Vladimir Lenin's Vanguard theory can also be understood in relation to the classification between movement and revolution. He stressed the importance of an organized group of revolutionaries to lead the working class in achieving socialism.
Although the July-August 2024 movement in Bangladesh did not reflect the spirit of the socialist movement, these theories played out during the expected 2024 upsurge, highlighting the relationship between organized movements and the public. It could offer insights into how effective a vanguard can be in gathering support, addressing social and economic problems, and promoting political change in Bangladesh.
Lenin’s Vanguard theory suggests that workers, or in Bangladesh's case, students, needed guidance to develop revolutionary awareness. This highlights the need for a well-disciplined revolutionary political party, which was absent during the movement in Bangladesh and is highly unlikely to emerge in the future.
Crane Brinton stated in “The Anatomy of Revolution” that the challenge of establishing a lasting order from the aftermath of a revolution frequently results in internal conflict and ultimately authoritarian rule. In his observation, Brinton likely noted that creating a new, stable system after a revolution can be challenging when the previous one has collapsed.
I have observed that differing perspectives and vested interests among societal factions can significantly complicate the rebuilding of the nation’s socio-economic and socio-political institutions in a spirit of democracy, even though the democratic process does not always yield ultimate success for nation-states.
These divergent views frequently result in conflicts that escalate over time. In such scenarios, it is not uncommon for a singular leader or faction to amass disproportionate power to reestablish order. However, this concentration of authority often compromises individual liberties and undermines the principles of democratic governance.
The lack of institutional capacity poses a significant challenge for states undergoing revolutions aimed at transforming the old autocratic structures. While revolutions can dismantle outdated institutions, they often fail to create stable and inclusive ones. This absence can lead to governance breakdown or a return to centralized control.
An American political sociologist, Barrington Moore Jr (1966), noted that economic pressures from significant changes can alienate supporters and strengthen counter-revolutionary forces. He illustrated this with Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution under Hugo Chávez, which launched social reforms but collapsed due to economic mismanagement and overreliance on oil.
Additionally, external interference from groups supporting authoritarian governments can weaken revolutions through military action, sanctions, or backing counterrevolutionary movements.
Jack Goldstone, an American sociologist, political scientist, and historian, in his (2001) piece, critically analyzed revolution and rebellion in the early modern world. He argued that revolutionary governments encounter significant external opposition, which constrains their independence and chances of survival.
The Cuban Revolution endured largely due to Soviet support despite US efforts to undermine it, like the Bay of Pigs invasion and the embargo. Following revolutions often lead to revolutionary fatigue and disillusionment with ideals such as equality and justice, as ongoing instability wears on citizens. Hannah Arendt noted that the initial fervor often gives way to disappointment over unmet commitments.
The Iranian Revolution (1979), which began with anti-authoritarian goals, eventually resulted in a theocratic regime with authoritarian governance, raising questions about Iranians' collective perception of its outcome. Counter-revolutionary forces, such as displaced elites and military bodies, frequently resist and can reclaim power.
In the book Age of Extremes, the British historian Eric Hobsbawm (1994) argues that successful revolutions are uncommon because old ruling classes and their deep-rooted stakeholders, both domestically and externally, usually possess the means to hinder change. For instance, during the French Revolution, monarchist forces continually weakened the movement, leading to Napoleon's rise to power.
Why have numerous strong revolutions not been sustained in Bangladesh?
Since the nation's liberation, examining post-revolution power struggles and authoritarianism is foundational to understanding the lack of a sustainable revolution in an independent Bangladesh.
After the 1971 Liberation War, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's leadership aimed to create a new state. However, internal divisions, economic issues, and political opposition led to a one-party rule (BAKSAL) in 1975, followed by substantial military rule until 1990.
Rounaq Jahan (2005) argued in her piece: "Bangladesh: Promise and Performance" that authoritarianism and elite conflicts hindered the establishment of democracy, resulting in coups and instability.
While military regimes framed themselves as stabilizers, their use of revolutionary rhetoric without implementing necessary reforms was unpopular among the state's citizens.
Fragile political institutions prioritize control over governance, leading to poor governance and disrupted citizen well-being. Strong institutions are essential for sustainable governance, but in Bangladesh, partisan politics, corruption, and patronage systems have consistently undermined this development.
Clear objectives allowed key movements in East Pakistan to gain recognition among the majority population. The Language Movement in 1952 aimed to establish “Bangla” as an official language, while the 1971 Liberation War sought self-determination against West Pakistani dominance. Badruddin Umar (2004) in “The Emergence of Bangladesh” identifies the Language Movement as a pivotal moment for Bengali nationalism, emphasizing the importance of cultural identity in fueling collective action.
Ahmed Rafiuddin's (2004) work, “The Bengal Muslims, 1871–1906”, highlights how clear goals and national identity underpinned successful revolutionary movements in Bangladesh, leading to widespread support across social classes. In contrast to unsuccessful revolutions elsewhere, these movements involved students, workers, peasants, professionals, and civil servants.
Bose Sarmila (2011) in “Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War” describes the 1971 war as a social revolution, involving diverse participants across religions and classes, characterized by an inclusive and nationalistic spirit.
Effective leaders in revolutionary movements demonstrate significant charisma and actively engage with grassroots constituents, effectively aligning popular movements with specific political objectives.
This dynamic was exemplified by the Six-Point Movement of 1966 in East Pakistan, where nationalist leaders adeptly transformed cultural grievances into a coherent secessionist strategy. This approach channeled widespread public discontent into organized action, thereby mitigating potential chaos.
The oppressive policies enacted by West Pakistan, characterized by economic inequity and military repression, created a moral impetus for revolution. The violent crackdown known as Operation Searchlight in 1971 intensified calls for independence, fortifying internal solidarity while simultaneously garnering international support.
International backing proved critical to the success of the 1971 Bangladesh independence movement. It played a pivotal role in shaping military dynamics, securing diplomatic recognition, and amplifying humanitarian awareness.
While the primary driving force behind the movement was the local populace and the Mukti Bahini, external support was instrumental in facilitating the eventual liberation of Bangladesh.
In a parallel instance, the mass mobilization that occurred in 1990 culminated in the ousting of Hussain Muhammad Ershad’s military regime. This movement, propelled by extensive public engagement and international pressure, marked a significant transition from dictatorship to parliamentary democracy in Bangladesh.
The July-August movement in Bangladesh was underpinned by a sustained wave of mass protests against the autocratic regime that had been ongoing since 2009. This mobilization culminated in pivotal events on August 5, 2024, highlighting a significant coalition of support from both the elite and general populace.
This scenario illustrates a practical application of Lenin's theory on the necessity of mass participation and leadership to facilitate revolutionary change; the experience in Bangladesh demonstrates that without widespread engagement and strategic direction, achieving governmental control can prove exceptionally challenging.
Has the recent movement failed in Bangladesh?
To understand the challenges faced by movements in Bangladesh, it is essential to look beyond street demonstrations. While many mass movements gain momentum, they often struggle to effect lasting change due to structural, political, and social barriers.
Since Bangladesh's independence in 1971, efforts have been hampered by a lack of a unified ideology, societal fragmentation among political parties, internal divisions, weak institutions, economic disruptions, external opposition, and declining revolutionary ideals, all of which hinder the sustainability of post-revolutionary governance. Most importantly, movements or revolutions have failed due to:
(a) elites and vested interested groups’ manipulation in the process of transferring basic structural reforms within the state’s social, political and legal institutions;
(b) authoritarian reactions;
(c) internal divisions within the movement organizers and followers.
To achieve enduring change, movements require ongoing civic involvement, institutional partnerships, and a distinct vision for democracy, not merely the ousting of specific leaders or regimes.
Many movements are reactionary, focusing on removing leaders or achieving electoral victory without clear plans to reform institutions such as the judiciary or the police. These movements often lack institutional grounding, allowing the old system to revive once initial enthusiasm fades.
In Bangladesh, political parties frequently appropriate grassroots movements to enhance their electoral prospects, only to perpetuate corrupt practices once in office. This dynamic engenders a significant disconnect, wherein grassroots activists perceive themselves as marginalized, as political leaders exploit public discontent for their personal or factional agendas
In my assessment, drawing upon extensive longitudinal observations of Bangladeshi society, the pathway to sustainable transformation in Bangladesh necessitates a cultural revolution that fundamentally reconfigures societal values, norms, and institutional frameworks.
Unlike political revolutions that primarily alter governing bodies, cultural revolutions aim to modify the foundational societal constructs, thereby impacting domains such as education, the arts, and social interactions. The primary attributes of this transformative process include:
(a) Ideological shift to change national beliefs;
(b) Public mobilization for norm transformation;
(c) Repression of old values through censorship;
(d) State or movement-driven initiatives;
(e) Enduring effects on institutions like education and family.
Preserving the momentum and legacy of a mass movement is a complex but essential task. Following the July-August 2024 movement in Bangladesh, one of the most important challenges has been transforming public aspirations into sustainable democratic and institutional reforms.
Achieving this requires building citizens' confidence, strengthening public institutions, and fostering trust among domestic and international stakeholders. While significant opportunities have emerged, the long-term success of the movement will depend on the ability of political and social actors to work collaboratively toward inclusive governance and national development.
Bangladesh has the potential to improve its chances of sustaining a revolution or upsurge that truly changes society and governance by nurturing a cultural revolution. This would also create an atmosphere conducive to the flourishing of democratic ideals and a just society.
Dr ASM Anam Ullah (PhD) is an Australian senior academic, editor, human rights activist, political analyst, and OHS and industrial relations expert.