The morning after the election results were announced, I found myself thinking not about numbers, seats, or victory margins, but about a childhood memory. I remember watching two elders in my neighbourhood who had argued bitterly over a local committee election. For weeks, they refused to speak. Yet the day after the results, the winner walked to the other’s house with sweets in hand.
There was no grand speech, no cameras -- just a quiet acknowledgment that the community mattered more than pride. That image stayed with me. Politics, at its best, was not about defeating someone; it was about restoring balance.
In many ways, that memory resurfaced when Tarique Rahman of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, following a massive landslide victory, chose to visit Shafiqur Rahman of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, and to engage with Nahid Islam of the National Citizen Party. In a political culture long defined by polarization and hardened rhetoric, the symbolism of such gestures cannot be dismissed as routine courtesy.
Bangladesh’s political history has been marked by intense rivalry. Elections often feel existential, as though the fate of the nation rests entirely on one outcome. In that environment, a landslide victory can easily foster triumphalism. The winner governs; the defeated retreat or resist. Yet moments of overwhelming mandate are precisely when the moral compass of leadership becomes visible. Power tests character.
By reaching out to Dr Shafiqur Rahman and Nahid Islam, Tarique Rahman signaled that governance must transcend partisan boundaries. Supporters and critics share the same public institutions, the same economic anxieties, and the same aspirations for stability. A meeting across ideological lines acknowledges that democracy is not a battlefield to be abandoned after victory; it is a shared home requiring constant maintenance.
Ideological differences between political parties in Bangladesh are rooted in competing narratives of identity, governance, and national direction. Yet acknowledging the presence of these narratives within the democratic framework is an act of maturity. Similarly, this engagement also reflects awareness of emerging political voices -- particularly those resonating with younger generations seeking reform and representation.
Critics may argue that such visits are strategic, that they are calculated moves to broaden influence or neutralize opposition. Politics, after all, is rarely devoid of calculation. Yet even strategic gestures can carry moral significance. In deeply polarized societies, the act of sitting together -- of recognizing the legitimacy of another leader’s constituency -- has symbolic power. It humanizes politics.
Love and kindness are words seldom used in statecraft. Yet democratic leadership rests on empathy and restraint. A leader after a landslide win could choose to consolidate authority through distance. Instead, extending a hand suggests confidence. It conveys that strength does not require humiliation of opponents. Kindness in politics is not softness but assurance that one’s mandate is secure enough to allow generosity.
Unity does not mean uniformity. Bangladesh is a mosaic of political, social, and generational perspectives. Attempts to silence dissent have historically deepened division rather than healed it. Inclusive gestures, by contrast, create the possibility of shared responsibility. The economic and social challenges facing the country -- global market volatility, youth employment, institutional reform -- cannot be addressed in isolation. A fractured polity weakens collective resilience.
For many young citizens who have grown up witnessing confrontational politics, this outreach offers an alternative narrative. It suggests that disagreement need not escalate into hostility. It reminds observers that electoral victory is not an endpoint but the beginning of a broader obligation -- to represent even those who did not vote for you.
There are risks in such openness. Hardliners may interpret it as compromise. Loyalists may question the need to engage ideological opponents after such decisive success. Yet leadership is often measured not by how one treats supporters, but by how one treats rivals. The courage to step into an opponent’s space, especially at the height of political ascendancy, reflects an understanding that legitimacy extends beyond numbers.
Bangladesh’s democratic journey has oscillated between unity and fragmentation. The foundational moments of national solidarity remind citizens that collective purpose can overcome difference. Contemporary politics has at times drifted toward entrenched antagonism.
A landslide victory confers authority; reconciliation builds durability. Power can be secured through ballots, but unity must be cultivated through intention. By crossing ideological lines in the immediate aftermath of electoral triumph, Tarique Rahman has offered a symbolic reminder that democracy is not only about competition -- it is about coexistence.
That childhood memory of sweets shared after a bitter contest returns here with renewed relevance. Leadership, at its best, recognizes that communities endure beyond contests. In a nation often divided by party colours and rhetoric, gestures rooted in respect and outreach illuminate another path -- one where love, kindness, and unity are not abstract ideals, but practical foundations for a stable and hopeful Bangladesh.
Nasrin Pervin is a faculty member of North South University.
