‘Dictator’ Vs ‘Stabiliser’: The Shifting Narrative On Sheikh Hasina’s Legacy Amid Bangladesh Bedlam

Last Updated:December 19, 2025, 19:00 IST

The debate is no longer about whether Hasina was 'good' or 'evil', but whether her brand of governance was the only thing preventing state collapse

On social media, the 'once-tarred' leader is increasingly being re-evaluated through the lens of regional security. File pic/AFP

As Bangladesh descends into a cycle of street violence, targeted arson, and institutional collapse, a profound debate is surfacing across digital platforms regarding the legacy of ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

For years, the international community and domestic critics viewed her through a singular lens: a leader who had compromised democratic aesthetics through long incumbency and centralised power. However, as the post-August 2024 transition turns increasingly volatile, that narrative is being challenged by observers who argue that “imperfect order" has been replaced by a far more dangerous vacuum.

The ‘Denmark vs Reality’ Critique

A central theme in this emerging discourse, highlighted notably by former Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Menon Rao, is that Western critics judged Bangladesh as if it were a stable European democracy like Denmark, rather than a fragile, densely packed state with a history of violent Islamism.

This “context-blind activism" is now being blamed for ignoring three hard realities. First, that Hasina acted as a crucial stabiliser who contained radical offshoots like Jamaat-e-Islami and maintained a delicate civil-military balance. Second, that there was no credible, liberal alternative waiting in the wings; and third, that toppling a strong incumbent in a divided society rarely leads to pluralism but instead empowers the loudest and most organised radical forces.

The ‘Lesser Evil’ Argument Gains Traction

On social media, the “once-tarred" leader is increasingly being re-evaluated through the lens of regional security. Arguments are gaining ground that while Hasina’s regime was flawed, it provided a predictable geopolitical environment. Posts from regional security analysts suggest that the “democratic optics" chased by Western policymakers have inadvertently accelerated a counter-revolution.

This shift in sentiment is driven by the visible rise of street power and the persecution of minorities—groups that were statistically better protected during the Awami League’s tenure.

One viral thread argues that the “democratic opposition" was an overestimation by the West; removing pressure on Hasina did not empower liberals but instead paved the way for a “hybrid regime" where radical elements now hold the levers of influence.

A Legacy Reframed by Chaos

The debate is no longer about whether Hasina was “good" or “evil", but whether her brand of governance was the only thing preventing state collapse. Digital commentary is increasingly reflecting a grim irony: those who celebrated her fall are now witnessing the hollowing out of the very institutions they hoped would flourish.

With the interim government struggling to contain mobs and radical groups issuing threats to the media and judiciary, the “stability" of the Hasina era is being looked upon—at least by some—with a sense of strategic pragmatism that was absent during the heat of the August protests.

News world ‘Dictator’ Vs ‘Stabiliser’: The Shifting Narrative On Sheikh Hasina’s Legacy Amid Bangladesh Bedlam

Read More