Bangladesh’s political landscape has long been defined by division and vengeance. The cycle of retaliation, where one party in power seeks to silence and punish the opposition, has turned politics into a battleground of personal vendettas rather than a platform for national progress. This toxic environment has not only deepened mistrust, but has also hindered the country’s democratic development. At a time when political discourse is increasingly being shaped by hostility, BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia’s recent speech from London offers a rare and necessary call for unity. Her appeal to move beyond vengeance is not just a political statement—it is a vision for a more stable and democratic Bangladesh.

Khaleda’s six-minute virtual speech from London was notable not just for what she said, but for what she did not say. Despite being under medical treatment and having endured 17 years of political persecution—including imprisonment—she did not utter a single word against Sheikh Hasina. She did not even directly mention the Awami League.

The former ruling party and its leaders left no stone unturned in its efforts to weaken her and her party, yet instead of responding with anger or a call for revenge, she appealed to the people with a message of unity. This makes her stand apart from her political adversary, whose rhetoric has often been laced with accusations and hostility towards opponents.

Since Hasina’s government took office in 2009, Khaleda’s political life has been marked by a series of humiliations and hardships. She was forcibly evicted from her longtime residence in Dhaka cantonment, an episode that saw her break down in tears at a press conference, only to have her emotional plea dismissed by the Awami League leaders as insincere. The hostility intensified further in 2013, when Khaleda was physically blocked from participating in the BNP’s “March for Democracy” protest. In an infamous display of political suppression, the government positioned sand-laden trucks outside her residence, ensuring that she would not be able to leave. It was a moment that came to symbolise the state of the country’s democracy, one where dissent was not just discouraged, but actively silenced.

Khaleda’s ordeal did not stop at political obstruction. She was later imprisoned on corruption charges under circumstances that many believe were politically motivated, while Hasina, despite facing similar allegations, had all cases against her dismissed upon assuming power. Even from behind bars, Khaleda became a target of ridicule, with Hasina mockingly referring to her as a “thief” and repeatedly belittling her political movement. At one point, Hasina even suggested that Khaleda should be “thrown off” the newly constructed Padma Bridge, an astonishing remark for a sitting prime minister to make.

Yet, despite all of this, Khaleda Zia chose not to focus on past grievances. She warned that fascist forces and enemies of the country are working to undermine the mass uprising and called upon the BNP activists to unite and reorganise with greater determination. Her message was clear: politics should be done for progress, not retribution.

In Bangladesh, power and politics have frequently been used to punish political rivals, who have been treated as enemies rather than opponents. This has resulted in a deeply polarised society where policy debates are sidelined in favour of personal attacks. Khaleda Zia’s refusal to engage in this cycle of hostility sets a different precedent—one that prioritises reconciliation over retaliation.

History offers valuable lessons on the importance of unity over vendetta. Nations that have broken free from cycles of political revenge have been able to move forward and rebuild. South Africa’s transition from apartheid, Chile’s return to democracy after dictatorship, and Germany’s post-war reconciliation all demonstrate that progress is possible when leaders choose dialogue over division. Bangladesh, with its own history of resilience, has the same opportunity: to reject the politics of punishment and embrace a future built on democratic principles.

However, unity does not mean forgetting past injustices or allowing wrongdoing to go unpunished. A nation cannot build its future solely by seeking revenge for its past. Accountability must be pursued, but it should not be weaponised for political gain. True democracy thrives when differences are debated, not suppressed, and when justice is served in a manner that strengthens, rather than divides, the nation.

For too long, Bangladeshi politics has been defined by who holds power rather than how that power is used to serve the people. Khaleda Zia’s call to go beyond vengeance presents an opportunity to reset this dynamic. The real question is whether the country’s political leadership—on all sides—is willing to rise to the occasion. This call for unity should not be dismissed as mere rhetoric. It is an essential step towards restoring democracy, fostering stability, and ensuring that governance serves the people. If Bangladesh is to move forward, unity must not just be an idea—it must be a practice.