The brutal and heinous attack on Sharif Osman Hadi should have served as a moment of collective reckoning for Bangladesh's political class. Instead, it has laid bare a deeper malaise: a corrosive political culture in which reflexive blame, public posturing and partisan point-scoring take precedence over responsibility, restraint and democratic purpose.
In the days following the attack, major political parties have been locked in a relentless blame game, trading accusations and counter-accusations with little regard for the gravity of the crime itself. This spectacle has not only shocked citizens who expected sobriety and unity at a moment of national distress, but has also seriously undermined confidence in the country's ability to manage a fragile democratic transition.
The damage is twofold. First, the politicisation of the attack risks impeding a proper, impartial investigation into a crime that demands justice above all else. Second, and more dangerously, it threatens to derail the smooth transition to democracy at a time when the country stands at a historic crossroads.
Bangladesh has emerged from fifteen years of authoritarian rule through a rare moment of political convergence. Parties with deep ideological differences and long-standing rivalries stood shoulder to shoulder in resisting an increasingly repressive system. That unity, however uneasy, created the conditions for change. It also raised public expectations that the post-authoritarian era would be guided by a new political ethic -- one rooted in democratic maturity rather than zero-sum rivalry.
The response to the attack on Hadi suggests that this lesson has not yet been learned.
Rather than allowing law-enforcing agencies to carry out their work free from pressure, sections of the political establishment have rushed to weaponise the incident. Allegations have been made without evidence; insinuations have been aired in public forums; responsibility has been assigned before facts have been established. In doing so, political actors have not only weakened the prospect of justice for the victim but have also signalled that old habits die hard.
It is against this backdrop that the chief adviser's expressed concern over infighting among anti-fascist political parties assumes particular significance. In a meeting with leaders of major parties on Saturday, he reportedly voiced his deep frustration at the unexpected escalation of blaming and counter-blaming.
The warning should not be dismissed as routine rhetoric. It reflects a genuine fear that internal divisions within democratic forces are being exploited by actors who have no stake in a credible election or a democratic outcome. When those who claim to oppose authoritarianism begin to undermine one another, they inadvertently serve the interests of those who wish to see the process fail.
History offers ample evidence of how democratic transitions collapse -- not always through dramatic coups, but through gradual erosion, mistrust and self-inflicted wounds.
There is now broad consensus, both domestically and internationally, that elections are the only legitimate pathway to restoring democracy and stabilising Bangladesh's socio-economic situation. Investor confidence, institutional credibility and social cohesion all depend on a political settlement grounded in popular consent.
Delaying or derailing the February polls would deepen uncertainty at a time when the economy remains fragile and public trust in institutions is still being rebuilt. Every day of political turbulence exacts a cost -- in jobs not created, reforms not implemented, and hope not realised.
Yet elections cannot be free, fair or credible in an environment poisoned by hostility among democratic actors themselves. Unity does not mean uniformity; disagreement is intrinsic to politics. But there is a fundamental difference between principled disagreement and destructive antagonism.
The present climate has created fertile ground for what many fear most: shadowy quarters actively working to prevent the upcoming polls. These actors thrive in chaos. They exploit division, amplify mistrust and capitalise on political immaturity. The more fragmented the democratic front becomes, the easier it is to justify delays, exceptional measures or a return to coercive politics under the guise of "stability".
This is not conjecture. Bangladesh has been here before.
Moments of transition have repeatedly been sabotaged by the inability of political parties to rise above immediate tactical gains and recognise the larger national interest. The result has often been a vicious cycle: instability breeds intervention; intervention breeds repression; repression breeds resistance -- and the democratic project is set back by years, if not decades.
If the post-authoritarian era is to mean anything, it must be marked by a decisive break from this past. The country urgently needs a new political culture -- one that prizes institutional integrity over partisan advantage, and democratic restraint over rhetorical excess.
Such a culture would rest on several basic principles.
First, respect for due process. Law-enforcing agencies must be allowed to perform their duties without political interference or public intimidation. Justice for Hadi will not be delivered through press statements or social media accusations, but through transparent investigation and prosecution.
Second, mutual respect among political rivals. Differences of opinion are inevitable, especially during periods of transition. But these differences must not degenerate into personal attacks, inflammatory language or efforts to delegitimise opponents. When political discourse becomes ugly, it corrodes public faith in democracy itself.
Third, unity on foundational issues. While parties may disagree on policy, ideology or leadership, there must be a shared commitment to holding elections on time, safeguarding civil liberties and preventing a return to authoritarianism.
Ultimately, political parties are accountable not to their inner circles or online supporters, but to the citizens who have endured years of repression, economic hardship and democratic deprivation. Those citizens did not mobilise for change merely to witness a replay of familiar dysfunction.
The attack on Hadi should have united political actors in grief, resolve and determination to uphold the rule of law. Instead, it has exposed how fragile the consensus for democratic transition remains.
Yet it is not too late to correct course.
Leadership, in moments like this, is measured not by the sharpness of one's accusations but by the capacity for restraint. It is demonstrated by the willingness to step back from the brink, to lower the temperature, and to place the national interest above partisan reflexes.
Bangladesh stands at the edge of a narrow but real window of opportunity. A credible election, held at the earliest possible time, could restore democratic legitimacy and begin the long process of institutional repair. Failure, by contrast, would risk plunging the country back into a familiar black hole -- one where fascistic tendencies re-emerge under new pretexts and old freedoms are once again curtailed.
The choice before political parties is stark. They can either act as custodians of a hard-won democratic opening, or as its inadvertent gravediggers.
The country demands unity on the essentials, civility in disagreement and maturity in conduct. Above all, it demands that no party, faction or leader crosses the red line where political competition becomes an existential threat to democracy itself.
Let us hope that good sense prevails -- and that Bangladesh's political actors prove equal to the historic responsibility they now bear.
mirmostafiz@yahoo.com