The challenge now for Bangladesh is not just to remove the remnants of Sheikh Hasina’s regime, but to unlearn the authoritarian habits it instilled, writes Tasnia Symoom
WITH the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s long-standing authoritarian regime in July 2024 — toppled through a mass uprising after around hundreds of citizens were killed by state forces and Awami party workers — many in Bangladesh hoped for a democratic rebirth, one grounded in pluralism, justice, non-discrimination and civic respect. Yet, in the months that followed, a disturbing trend emerged: many political actors, including youth leaders and political parties who once stood firmly against autocracy, are beginning to mirror the very traits they fought against. They dismiss dissent, enforce their views as absolute, promote mob justice and even resist the idea of holding inclusive elections anytime soon. What we are witnessing is not an anomaly — it is a well-documented phenomenon in political psychology often referred to as ‘post-authoritarian syndrome.’
For over 15 years, Bangladeshis lived under a political system that normalised top-down control, suppression of opposition and the use of force to silence critics. In such an environment, citizens — whether willingly or reluctantly — internalise the norms and behaviours of authoritarian rule. This is called authoritarian socialisation. When a generation grows up seeing power being used without accountability, and when disagreement is punished rather than debated, they often adopt those same methods once power becomes available to them.
This phenomenon is not unique to Bangladesh. From post-Mubarak Egypt to post-Suharto Indonesia, countries transitioning out of long-term authoritarianism often face a difficult truth: the dictator may be gone, but the dictatorship lives on in institutions, social norms and individual behaviours. Political scientists like Guillermo O’Donnell and Juan Linz have long warned of these authoritarian legacies. O’Donnell emphasised how delegative democracy — where leaders rule in the name of the people but without constraints — can hollow out democratic institutions. Linz pointed out that once democratic norms are eroded under autocracy, they are difficult to restore. Scholars describe this as ‘path dependency — a concept that suggests once a political system is shaped by authoritarianism, it becomes hard to redirect without deep structural and cultural reform. We see this today in Bangladesh, where instead of sitting for constructive dialogue, some groups resort to mob justice — labelling dissenters as traitors or enemies, attacking their character, and spreading defamatory content online or in public gatherings. This mirrors the tactics normalised under the Hasina regime, where defamation and coercion replaced debate. Such reliance on force and public shaming, rather than democratic engagement, reflects how citizens can unknowingly or subconsciously continue walking in the shadow of autocrats — even after the autocrat is gone.
Moreover, long-term repression creates psychological effects akin to trauma. This is sometimes referred to, in journalistic and academic circles, as ‘democratic post-traumatic stress disorder’ — a condition where people who have lived under authoritarian rule struggle to trust democratic processes, fearing instability, opposition, or loss of control. Citizens become suspicious of opponents and more prone to seeking quick, forceful solutions over slow, deliberative consensus. In such contexts, elections are viewed not as a means of resolving differences, but as high-stakes battles where only one side can be ‘right.’ For example, the recent slogan ‘five more years for Yunus government’ on different platforms reflects a concerning misunderstanding of democracy — it implies indefinite rule without electoral legitimacy, mirroring the very authoritarian impulse people once opposed. The essence of democracy lies in regular, competitive elections where leaders gain power through the will of the people — not through appointment or popularity alone. Without such legitimacy, no government, however well-intentioned, can truly claim the democratic mandate to make binding domestic or international political decisions. This is why even well-meaning young leaders often adopt the exclusionary, repressive playbook of their predecessors — they are operating from a place of inherited fear, distrust and political trauma shaped by years of democratic PTSD.
The challenge now for Bangladesh is not just to remove the remnants of Sheikh Hasina’s regime, but to unlearn the authoritarian habits it instilled. That requires more than legal reforms or free elections. It calls for a cultural reckoning: a national dialogue on tolerance, institutional accountability, civic education and the kind of leadership we want to model for the next generation. Otherwise, we risk replacing one autocracy with another — this time with new faces but the same underlying mindset. Authoritarianism is not just a system of government, it is a way of thinking. And unless we change how we think about power, dissent and justice, real democracy in Bangladesh will remain out of reach.
Ìý
Tasnia Symoom is a political scientist and postdoctoral fellow at the University of Kentucky. Her work focuses on South Asian politics, identity politics and democratic transitions.
