Civil society is generally viewed as the moral compass of a nation, entrusted with the responsibility of evaluating government actions through objective and non-partisan analysis. Its role includes informing the public, highlighting policy shortcomings, and promoting accountability. In Bangladesh, however, concerns have been raised about whether segments of civil society maintained such neutrality, particularly during the period of the Yunus Government.
Observers note that some civil society representatives appear to hold affiliations—direct or indirect—with political or ideological groups. While certain individuals are seen as supportive of specific political parties, others who advocate depoliticisation have been criticised for seeking influence within governance structures. This dual positioning, critics argue, has at times contributed to public uncertainty and facilitated the acceptance of non-elected administrations.
Bangladesh has witnessed such administrations on two notable occasions: during the 2007–08 Bangladeshi caretaker government and following the 2024 mass uprising, which resulted in the formation of the Yunus Government. Despite differing political contexts, both administrations have been described as facing governance and economic challenges.
During the Yunus Government, the role of policy analysts and economists became a focal point of discussion. Debapriya Bhattacharya, an honorary fellow of the Centre for Policy Dialogue, recently commented that the Strait of Hormuz does not constitute a major barrier to energy imports. He also warned that a last-minute agreement with the United States could pose risks to energy security and sovereignty. While these remarks have been regarded as grounded in economic assessment, questions have been raised regarding his earlier association with the Yunus Government, including his leadership role in a white paper committee and his previous positive evaluation of economic management during that period.
Reported Developments During the Yunus Government
| Sector | Observations |
|---|---|
| Economic activity | Reports of factory closures and reduced industrial output |
| Investment climate | Decline in both domestic and foreign investment |
| Financial environment | High lending rates and reliance on borrowing |
| Private sector | Allegations of legal pressures and operational disruptions |
| Employment | Increase in unemployment and poverty |
| Public order | Incidents of mob violence affecting business confidence |
Law-and-order conditions during the Yunus Government also drew attention. Reports of mob violence, attacks on media organisations, and unrest in industrial zones were cited as concerns. Critics state that some civil society representatives did not consistently address these issues during the period.
The activities of Transparency International Bangladesh were also discussed in this context. Its Executive Director, Iftekharuzzaman, has been described by critics as more vocal on governance and human rights matters under elected governments than during the Yunus Government, including issues such as delays in forming statutory institutions and allegations of arbitrary detentions.
Constitutional and legal questions further contributed to the debate. Badiul Alam Majumdar has been mentioned in relation to governance reform discussions during the Yunus Government. In contrast, constitutional expert Shahdeen Malik publicly raised concerns about aspects of governance from an early stage.
It is also noted that civil society responses were not uniform. Some individuals, including economist Anu Muhammad, highlighted governance concerns, though at different points in time.
The central issue emerging from this discussion is accountability: whether civil society actors who supported, participated in, or remained silent during the Yunus Government should bear responsibility comparable to those associated with political administrations.