The interim government is delivering
Md Rubaiyath Sarwar
The last couple of weeks have been quite telling for the interim government (IG) -- Sheikh Hasina’s death sentence alongside the DP world contract for handling of New Mooring Container Terminal in Chittagong Port, submission of the report on the BDR mutiny by the Independent Inquiry Commission, and now the issuance of the Supreme Court Secretariat Ordinance 2025 for full independence of the judiciary system in Bangladesh.
Earlier in November, the Interim Government published the gazette for the July National Charter Implementation Order, 2025. There were also actions on banking sector reform, police reform, and foreign donation rules.
All the while, I was also traveling across Asia and Africa on several assignments and had the chance to interact with diplomatic missions, foreign journalists, and economists who have been following and commenting on the developments in Bangladesh. As the discussions unfolded in office spaces and living rooms, I wondered, what messages the IG is sending to the world and whether and how Bangladesh is benefitting from these bold steps.
My query landed me in a rabbit hole; I ended up having more questions than answers.
It is clear that the IG is delivering on its commitment for reform. I once became skeptical about the IG’s intent and capacity to deliver on its promises as I found no incentive for them to deliver. Who are they accountable to? I asked.
If they do not perform and leave, of course they would have a tainted image as individuals who failed, but the country has a unique personality disorder of forgetting what happened just a few days back. As such, there is barely any long-term risk.
On social media, a viral topic of national interest survives barely for four days and a new issue emerges every four hours - this I was told by some professionals who work with social media content. The intent of the IG could be personal or collective, but the intent is clear and they are delivering reforms that a political government is highly unlikely to deliver. And in the process they are taking risks.
The media and the commentators went abuzz debating the way the IG has handled the route to delivery for some of these landmark actions -- the procedure for Hasina’s trial was questioned both at national and international level. The hastiness in closing the PPP procurement of the contractor for handling the port is still being questioned.
While we can question the processes and we must, we should also deeply think, what signals are we sending to the stakeholders and whether we are doing enough to leverage on these actions.
My assessment is that we are barely doing anything, rest alone doing enough.
Take the case of Hasina’s verdicts. To the people of Bangladesh, this is a signal that the IG wants to close its business before it exits.
To the political actors, it is a signal that they should not go rogue in the future and they should know the consequences of working against greater goods and welfare of the nation.
To the neighbouring countries and their leaders, it should be a signal that Bangladesh has the courage to pursue its national interests and that intimidation will not work.
To the global leaders, it should be a signal that Bangladesh is in the process of correcting its course; that it is poised to embrace democracy.
When combined, these signals unleash the true power and the essence of this verdict. Otherwise, it does not go beyond just a verdict, a localized action that barely bears any long-term significance.
And this is where we came short. I do not think the IG did enough to engage with national, regional, and global media to explain what this verdict means for the people of Bangladesh and for the stakeholders of Bangladesh. But the time is still there and I believe the IG will take the right actions to make these signals clear to the stakeholders.
All the diplomatic missions are closely following the deals being made with foreign companies. Bangladesh is an important trading partner. The development financial institutions and diplomatic missions are holding on to their investments in Bangladesh. Their strategies are also stalled and are asking what directions will Bangladesh take for the next five years.
They are asking a plethora of questions -- what growth model will Bangladesh pursue? Will Bangladesh continue investment in mega infrastructure? Will Bangladesh invest in manufacturing jobs? Will Bangladesh invest in regional and global connectivity for trade? Are political actors ready to embrace peace or are they going to fight post-election in February? Will there be continuity of economic policies and priorities for the next 15 years or will it be fractured with every election?
The IG cannot answer these questions. The political parties running for the elections must. They must know that they are going to inherit an economy that is trying to rebound but still far behind its potential. They must know that the investments have dried up. The soft loans are stalled. The grants are diminishing fast.
Where will the money come from? If they are not engaging with regional and global investors now, then they might be too late. It is the time when the political parties must sit with think tanks, economists, and consulting agencies to define the pathway for economic growth post-election. There also should be agreement on how the reforms pursued by the IG will be continued.
The independence of the Judiciary should be an important signal to the world that Bangladesh is on course for political stability. But this does not get established if the political actors are not wholeheartedly endorsing it. As of writing this piece, I did not read a statement as such.
In brief, the IG has made some bold moves but the stakeholders have barely done enough to build on them. In absence of it, Bangladesh has more to lose than gain from these reforms.
Md Rubaiyath Sarwar is Managing Director, Innovision Consulting.
