Analysis: What does The Economist think of Bangladesh?

The Economist published two articles on June 26, addressing critical developments in Bangladesh under the interim government led by Muhammad Yunus. These articles offer detailed analyses of the post-revolution challenges, focusing on retribution versus reform and the controversial ban on the Awami League. Below is an expanded review of these two latest pieces, drawing on their content and context while critically examining the narratives presented.

The article titled “A Big Mistake by Bangladesh,” featured in the Asia section of the UK-based magazine, examines the fallout from the July-August 2024 uprising that toppled Sheikh Hasina nearly a year after the event.

It frames the interim government’s struggle as a tug-of-war between retribution and the promised rejuvenation of democratic institutions.

The piece notes that over a thousand people died during the uprising, with many more injured, setting a sombre stage for Yunus’ leadership. Appointed as Chief Adviser following Hasina’s flight to India on August 5, 2024, Yunus, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, initially garnered widespread support with his pledge to restore order and democracy after years of misrule.

However, the article highlights a troubling shift toward retribution. It details how the caretaker government has pursued vengeance against Awami League members through spurious legal cases and bureaucratic purges, a practice that echoes Hasina’s own tactics.

This includes the arrest of over 140,000 individuals, many on questionable charges, and the targeting of former officials with investigations into corruption and human rights abuses. The piece cites economic indicators to suggest tentative recovery—GDP growth projected at 3.9% by the Asian Development Bank, inflation easing from 12% to 9%, and stabilised remittances—yet warns that political polarisation undermines these gains.

It mentions the appointment of a former IMF official to head the Bangladesh Bank and efforts to recover offshore assets, but labels these as “low-hanging fruit,” with structural issues like garment export reliance and infrastructure gaps persisting.

Sheikh Hasina slams Yunus for economic crisis, lies, mobocracy

Journalist Masood Kamal: Yunus is dividing the nation, provoking civil war

EXCLUSIVE: Video shows Yunus is mentally, physically unstable

Chatham House: Yunus makes false claims in London amid eroding public trust

A significant focus is Yunus’ tilt toward China, noting his March 2025 Beijing visit and a trilateral summit with Pakistan, which has raised eyebrows regionally. The article suggests this pivot could destabilise relations with India and increase dependence on Chinese loans, a concern amplified by the Chittagong Port lease controversy involving a US-linked firm, DP World.

Legal scholar Arafat Khan is quoted advocating for a “Nelson Mandela moment” to move beyond vengeance, emphasising the need to unite Bangladeshis rather than punish them.

The piece critiques the interim government’s failure to include diverse political voices, particularly the Awami League, and warns of a risk of violent extremism, citing the release of Ansar al-Islam leader Mufti Jashimuddin Rahmani on bail in August 2024.

Critically, the article’s portrayal of Yunus as facing an “immensely difficult task” feels sympathetic but avoids probing the military’s role or the interim government’s reliance on student and Islamist support, which may incentivise retribution. The economic optimism contrasts with reports of foreign brands shifting garment orders, hinting at unaddressed vulnerabilities. The China pivot is mentioned but lacks depth on its strategic implications, potentially underplaying tensions with India and the US.

The editorial

Published in the Leaders section, the editorial titled “Banning the Opposition Is No Way to Revive Bangladesh’s Democracy” takes a principled stand against the interim government’s May 2025 ban on the Awami League under anti-terrorism laws, arguing it undermines democratic revival.

It acknowledges the party’s “dire record” under Hasina—marked by election rigging, repression, and corruption—but insists that voters should retain the right to choose. The piece draws a historical parallel to the 1975 military coup that derailed democracy post-independence, suggesting Yunus’ administration risks a similar fate with its exclusionary policies.

The article details the ban’s context: the Awami League’s student wing, Chhatra League, was designated a terrorist entity in October 2024, and the party’s senior leadership, including Hasina, faces hundreds of cases for murder and crimes against humanity.

It notes the party’s disarray, with most leaders hiding or exiled, yet argues that not all members are tainted. The editorial posits that allowing the Awami League to contest elections, even if unlikely to win, would bolster parliamentary opposition and hold the government accountable.

It concludes with a call for reconciliation over revenge, urging Yunus to unban the party for a fair election.

The piece critiques the interim government’s legitimacy, pointing to its unelected status and the absence of a firm election date, set vaguely between December 2025 and June 2026 by Yunus in December 2024. It highlights growing political competition among the BNP, Jamaat-e-Islami, and student leaders forming new parties, which could complicate reforms.

The article also references the OHCHR’s February 2025 report estimating 1,400 deaths, contrasting with the MoH’s 834, to underscore the need for transparency, though it does not delve into the data dispute’s political exploitation.

A critical lens reveals limitations. The editorial’s advocacy for the Awami League’s inclusion assumes voter rationality despite the party’s unpopularity, ignoring its historical baggage and public demand for accountability.

The focus on democratic ideals overlooks the interim government’s reliance on Islamist-leaning student leaders, whose influence may shape the ban, as noted in other analyses.

The call for elections lacks discussion on logistical challenges—e.g., judicial and electoral commission reforms—amid ongoing instability. The piece’s Western democratic lens may not fully grapple with Bangladesh’s violent political culture, where exclusionary tactics have historically prevailed.

Both articles reflect The Economist’s shift from initial optimism (e.g., “Country of the Year” 2024) to a more critical stance, aligning with backlash over minority violence and economic woes. “A Big Mistake” offers a broader socioeconomic canvas, linking retribution to economic and geopolitical risks, while “Banning the Opposition” zeroes in on democratic principles, challenging Yunus’ governance model.

Together, they highlight the interim government’s dual challenge: managing post-uprising chaos while laying democratic foundations. However, their reliance on Yunus’ moral authority—rooted in his Nobel status—overlooks his legal controversies and unelected power, potentially softening critique.

The two articles’ economic focus is data-rich but risks oversimplifying structural issues like youth unemployment and infrastructure deficits. Geopolitically, the China tilt and Chittagong Port issue are under-explored, missing a chance to analyse US-China-India dynamics fully.

The call for inclusivity and reform is sound but lacks practical steps, such as engaging civil society beyond students or addressing military influence. Overall, while insightful, the pieces reflect a Western narrative that may not fully capture Bangladesh’s complex, locally driven transition, urging readers to seek diverse perspectives for a balanced view.