Suspension or Ban? Yunus’s Words Expose Bangladesh’s Democratic Crisis

Yunus Exposes His Own Insecurities Again…

Muhammad Yunus has once again exposed his own contradictions and insecurities in his recent interview with Mehdi Hasan on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. Trying to defend the suspension of the Awami League, Bangladesh’s largest political party, Yunus stumbled into word games, insisting the party is not “banned” but merely “suspended.” This absurd claim reveals two things at once: he does not fully grasp the democratic consequences of his actions, and he is terrified of the Awami League’s ability to regain strength at any moment. 

By twisting language to cover authoritarian decisions, Yunus has shown that he is neither confident in his government’s legitimacy nor committed to the democratic principles he pretends to uphold. This interview is more than just political theater; it is proof that Bangladesh is slipping into dangerous territory, where the people’s will is being silenced and international intervention is urgently needed.

Suspension vs Ban: Yunus’s Contradictions on Awami League Status

Throughout the interview, Yunus tried to frame the Awami League’s status as a “suspension” rather than a ban. On the surface, this might appear minor, but in practice, there is no meaningful distinction. If a political party cannot organize, campaign, or contest elections, it has effectively been banned. Calling it a suspension is nothing more than a rhetorical trick, designed to soften the reality for international observers questioning his government’s democratic legitimacy.

The contradiction is stark. Earlier this year, the Election Commission canceled the Awami League’s registration entirely after the caretaker government’s crackdown. Yet Yunus now insists the party remains “valid.” Which is the truth? Either the caretaker government and the Election Commission are working at cross-purposes, or Yunus is deliberately misleading both the Bangladeshi public and the global community. Neither scenario reflects transparency or accountability.

This doublespeak is no accident. By manipulating language, Yunus attempts to claim moral high ground while silencing Bangladesh’s largest political force. The intent is clear: deny the Awami League the space to operate while pretending democracy remains intact.

Fear of the Awami League’s Return

Yunus’s interview revealed a palpable fear of the Awami League regaining political influence. He downplayed the party’s support base, claiming he “wouldn’t say millions” backed the party, a transparent attempt to minimize its influence in public perception. But the AL remains Bangladesh’s most organized and popular political force, capable of mobilizing rapidly.

His obsession with keeping the AL sidelined exposes the fragility of his interim government. The use of suspension as a tool to block the party’s activities is not neutral governance; it is panic-driven. Yunus fears that once the AL regains momentum, it could reclaim political space and challenge his authority. A caretaker government is supposed to operate impartially; Yunus’s approach undermines that principle.

This paradox is telling. On one hand, Yunus claims he is building democratic reforms to prevent “fascism” from returning. On the other hand, he bends democratic norms to protect his temporary grip on power. The repeated emphasis on suspension and downplaying of support demonstrates that fear, not principle, is driving his decisions.

The Illusion of Choice: Yunus Blocks Opposition While Claiming Democracy

Bangladesh is facing a profound democratic crisis. By suspending the Awami League, Yunus has undermined the foundations of representative governance. Democracy is not simply holding elections; it is allowing all political voices, including dissenting ones, to participate freely. Yunus’s insistence that the AL cannot engage in political activity while remaining “valid” is a rhetorical sleight of hand masking authoritarian control.

Critics like Amartya Sen have warned that excluding a major political party is inherently anti-democratic. Yunus dismisses such concerns, arguing that the Election Commission can prevent the AL from contesting polls due to past actions. This reasoning is hollow: democracy cannot be preserved by silencing opposition; it requires accountability, oversight, and fair competition.

Yunus’s rhetoric frames the AL as unrepentant and violent, crafting a narrative to justify exclusion. The precedent is dangerous: political power in Bangladesh is no longer about winning consent, but about manipulating institutions and controlling narratives. The interview exposes a government claiming to safeguard democracy while actively dismantling its core components.

What the Interview Reveals About Yunus’s Mindset

The interview exposes Yunus as a leader riddled with contradictory, evasive, and inconsistent answers, with a deep obsession to keep the Awami League sidelined. He repeatedly claimed the party is “valid” yet suspended, downplayed its support, and asserted that the Election Commission alone decides which parties can participate, a blatant disregard for democratic principles.

His statement, “it’s our decision how long we stay,” highlights an authoritarian mindset, signaling a willingness to extend power at will, unconcerned with public consent or electoral legitimacy. The repeated focus on blocking the AL reveals a government driven by fear, not governance. Yunus is less concerned with fair competition or the electorate’s will and more intent on maintaining control by suppressing Bangladesh’s most popular political force.

This interview is proof that Yunus fears real democracy. His contradictory, evasive, and controlling approach leaves no doubt: his assurances of democratic intent are hollow.

International Intervention: The Only Way to Restore Democracy

Bangladeshis cannot restore balance alone while the country’s largest political party is forcibly sidelined. Yunus’s contradictory words and authoritarian actions demonstrate that without international pressure, there is little hope of free and fair elections.

Global institutions, including the UN, the European Union, and democratic nations, must intervene to ensure the Awami League can operate freely and that elections are conducted inclusively. The people of Bangladesh deserve a government accountable to them, not one that manipulates institutions to maintain temporary control.

If unchecked, Yunus’s interim government risks becoming a permanent authoritarian regime, silencing opposition and undermining the democratic rights of millions. The world cannot afford to ignore the warning signs revealed in this interview.