Bangladesh’s Political Crisis: The Legitimacy of Sheikh Hasina’s Government and the Danger of International Recognition

The political situation in Bangladesh is getting ever more complex, raising very fundamental questions about the legitimacy of its current government and the role of international recognition. Central to this debate is the position of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, whose claims to leadership remain firmly in place despite mounting political tension. Hasina has always maintained that she has not resigned, and there is no letter of resignation. The Bangladesh President has also publicly stated that he did not receive any such letter. The assertion, according to Bangladesh’s Constitution, puts Hasina as the legally recognized Prime Minister. Given this, any alternative government that claims legitimacy—especially one that bypasses constitutional processes—poses a serious challenge to the nation’s democratic framework and legal principles.

In any democracy, the legitimacy of a government rests upon the rule of law, constitutional processes, and, crucially, the will of the people. Bangladesh, a parliamentary democracy, has a constitution which specifically spelt out how the government can be changed or formed, and notably also specified how a Prime Minister could be removed. As Sheikh Hasina did not leave a resignation letter to back up her purported handing over, along with the President’s acknowledgement that no such letter existed, indicates that the Prime Minister hasn’t lost her mandate. By the Constitution’s own rules, her position remains valid until a clear and lawful process dictates otherwise.

This raises a critical issue: the legitimacy of any claim to power that bypasses the established legal processes. If a group or individual—such as Dr. Mohammed Yunus, who has recently been discussed as a figurehead for an alternative government—claims to replace Sheikh Hasina without the necessary constitutional procedure, this would, by definition, be an unconstitutional act. Any government formed under such circumstances would lack the legal and democratic legitimacy needed to be recognized as valid. And yet, some international actors are considering recognizing such a government. This poses a grave threat both to Bangladesh’s internal security and the integrity of the international diplomatic order.

International legitimacy granted to a government gives it a great deal of might to either legitimize or delegitimize a political entity. In recognizing a government, countries or international entities are essentially validating its prerogative to represent a nation both domestically and at the international level. But recognition is not a neutral act—it is rooted in the principles of law and democracy. International bodies, such as the United Nations, as well as individual countries, usually only recognize governments formed through constitutional means and democratic elections.

In Bangladesh’s case, an alternative government led by figures like Dr. Yunus—without a clear constitutional basis—would undermine the very democratic framework on which Bangladesh’s political system relies. Such recognition would not only be a veiled endorsement of an unconstitutional regime but also embolden undemocratic forces within the country. It would signal that the international community is willing to overlook the rule of law in favor of expediency or geopolitical considerations, a precedent that could have far-reaching consequences.

This kind of diplomatic engagement is risky. When the international community sanctions a government that bypasses legal and constitutional processes, it risks giving legitimacy to undemocratic practices. This will not only destabilize Bangladesh’s political landscape but may also create a dangerous precedent for other nations that are experiencing political crises. Democracy and constitutionalism will be undermined, and the global community’s credibility as a defender of democratic values will be seriously marred.

At this point, it becomes imperative for both Bangladesh citizens and the world to stand by and uphold Bangladesh’s constitutional order. Sheikh Hasina’s argument that the constitutional law bars her from leaving office, coupled with its lack of a resignation clause, provides an open and shut legal case for her leadership to continue. Thus, till the contrary is proven against her through the constitutional channel, such as a parliament vote of no-confidence or a legal transfer provided by constitution, her government remains legitimate.

The role of the international community should be to enable Bangladesh’s democratic processes to continue, not to give legitimacy to some form of attempt to bypass those very processes. Instead of supporting an illegitimate government that had not followed the prescribed democratic step, the international community should compel all parties to enter a dialogue within the constitution bounds. International actors can play a positive role in ensuring that Bangladesh remains committed to its democratic principles, rather than encouraging a path of legal ambiguity and political instability.

The idea of a “second liberation war,” which has been floated by some as a means to address the perceived political injustice, represents an extreme response to the crisis. While it is understandable that tensions are at a high level and frustrations with the political system continue to grow, violence and conflict are never the right solutions. Bangladesh’s painful struggle for independence in the distant past has created a sensitive issue that cannot be allowed again in the form of a second liberation war, which, not only being impractical, is dangerous.

It is more productive and profitable for both parties involved to seek peaceful resolution. Constitutional reforms, open dialogue, and promises for fair elections are the avenues upon which Bangladesh can overcome its crisis in politics. The world should encourage this approach of amicability and shun their steps that can raise these tensions.

The current political situation in Bangladesh presents a critical test of the country’s democratic resilience. If Sheikh Hasina continues in office, as the constitutional rules suggest, her government should be recognized as legitimate until proven otherwise. Any alternative government that emerges without adherence to legal and democratic processes cannot be viewed as a lawful representative of the Bangladeshi people.

To the international community, the message must be: support Bangladesh’s constitutional framework and the rule of law. Recognition of governments must be based on legitimacy derived from democratic processes, not on expedient political calculations. Anything less would risk not only undermining Bangladesh’s democracy but also setting a dangerous precedent for the future.