IN RECENT months, Bangladesh鈥檚 news media have been describing Sheikh Hasina in multiple ways: 鈥榝ormer prime minister,鈥� 鈥榦usted prime minister,鈥� or 鈥榯hen-prime minister.鈥� Technically, such phrasing isn鈥檛 wrong: even though the elections from 2014鈥�24 were widely condemned as fraudulent, in 1996 and 2008, she was in fact elected. But the core question is: is it journalistically just to call Sheikh Hasina the former prime minister? As someone who has practised journalism, studied it, and now teaches it at the university level, I believe the answer requires careful ethical reflection.
Let鈥檚 begin with a 2023 Washington Post article titled 鈥楤ye, Mister: Why (most) journalists turned against courtesy titles.鈥� The piece explains why many news organisations abandoned formal honorifics such as Mr, Ms, or Mx 鈥� because they can distort tone, imply undeserved respect and obscure accountability. The article asks, 鈥楧oes an odious individual deserve courtesy at all? 鈥楽tart with the very idea of 鈥淢r Hitler鈥濃�︹�� The answer, in newsroom consensus, is no. Though he was legally appointed Chancellor of Germany in 1933, his regime quickly destroyed democratic institutions and established a totalitarian dictatorship. Journalists and historians do not call him 鈥榝ormer Chancellor of Germany.鈥� They use 鈥楴azi dictator,鈥� 鈥楪erman tyrant,鈥� or simply 鈥楬itler.鈥� The reason is moral clarity: a title like 鈥榝ormer chancellor鈥� normalises extraordinary crimes.
Is it fair to compare Hasina to Hitler? My answer is no. May be for those who endured Hasina鈥檚 actions 鈥� including extrajudicial killing, enforced disappearances and state violence 鈥� make even the comparison seem justifiable. But comparison here is not about scale 鈥� it鈥檚 about journalistic framing. The United Nations fact-finding report documented that up to 1,400 people were killed during Bangladesh鈥檚 July鈥揂ugust 2024 protests 鈥� acts that 鈥榤ay amount to crimes against humanity.鈥� Hundreds more were maimed, blinded or disappeared during her regimes. Afterward, Hasina fled the country and now faces indictment in Dhaka鈥檚 war crimes tribunal.
In such a context, simply calling her 鈥榝ormer prime minister鈥� erases the moral and legal gravity of her rule. It signals an ordinary democratic succession where, in reality, there was state terror, mass killing and the collapse of constitutional order. By holding the office of prime minister, Hasina was sworn to uphold the constitution 鈥� a charge she breached time and again. Undemocratic elections, firing on peaceful protesters, jailing the opposition, silencing the press, and institutionalising a reign of terror have been documented. Her regime stands accused of undermining every major precept of her oath and the nation鈥檚 founding document. Journalism鈥檚 job is to inform with clarity 鈥� not to grant default honorifics.
Yes, 鈥榝ormer prime minister鈥� sounds neutral. But neutral isn鈥檛 always informative. Neutral phrasing can mislead when it normalises an extraordinary record of repression. It shields perpetrators from accountability and signals to survivors that society fails to distinguish between routine politics and extraordinary abuse. It can also insult victims. Think of six-year-old Basit Khan Musa, shot at the gate of his home during the July protests, and his mother, who was killed by bullets minutes later. To their families, the phrase 鈥榝ormer prime minister鈥� isn鈥檛 neutral 鈥� it鈥檚 painful erasure.
Today, Sheikh Hasina stands indicted for those very crimes in the eyes of international law, with proceedings underway in absentia. To continue using her office title without context, as in 鈥榝ormer prime minister,鈥� is to grant a status honorific that omits all the facts the public most needs to know.
Good journalism recognises that language is framing. Labels shape readers鈥� perception of magnitude and responsibility. That is why most global style guides 鈥� from AP to Reuters 鈥� recommend avoiding courtesy titles or status labels that lend legitimacy to discredited figures.听
Journalists should avoid referring to Sheikh Hasina as 鈥榝ormer prime minister鈥� in isolation. At a minimum, the office label must be paired with context about human rights abuses, constitutional breaches and her violent ouster. This is not merely a question of style, but of substance. Language frames how societies judge leaders and history. The politics of language allows journalists to exert power by framing an issue or event in alignment with a particular worldview. For example, simply referring to Hasina as a 鈥榝ormer prime minister鈥� obscures her misdeeds and risks portraying her as an unremarkable political figure, particularly to those unfamiliar with her history. As seen with Hitler and many other figures, once their crimes become public, the media鈥檚 language must shift for clarity and moral precision.
Critics may say avoiding 鈥榝ormer prime minister鈥� politicises reporting. In fact, the opposite is true: contextual accuracy is the core of objectivity. When a leader鈥檚 tenure is marked by systematic killings, enforced disappearances, corruption and repression, omitting those facts is itself a political act 鈥� one that normalises violence.
The newsroom must ask: whom do we serve? The powerful or the public? Bangladeshi journalists face a choice between comforting the remnants of a fallen regime and telling readers the full, uncomfortable truth. Every newsroom decides what kind of relationship it wants with its audience 鈥� one built on convenience or one built on honesty. Every journalistic action or work product should be evaluated against journalism鈥檚 espoused public service mission.
Ultimately, 鈥榝ormer prime minister鈥� is a courtesy title suitable for democratically elected leaders who left office peacefully. When a leader鈥檚 rule ends amid alleged crimes against humanity, the language of courtesy becomes the language of complicity. Calling Sheikh Hasina simply 鈥榝ormer prime minister鈥� is not merely incomplete 鈥� it is misleading, sanitising and ethically indefensible. Journalists owe their readers the truth in full context, not the comfort of euphemism.
听
Dr Md Khadimul Islam is an assistant professor of communication, Eastern New Mexico University, USA.
