Sheikh Hasina's autocratic rule came to an end in the wake of the mass uprising of July–August 2024, which also led to her to flee the country. Her nearly sixteen-year-long rule had essentially sustained itself through repression, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and fabricated legal cases. Various political parties attempted to build resistance against this rule at different times, but such efforts only intensified harsher repression against pro-democracy parties, institutions, and individuals. However, defying all obstacles, the united movement of students and citizens in July–August 2024 transformed into a full-scale mass upsurge. The manner in which state forces and armed party activists were deployed to suppress this uprising was labelled by a United Nations report as "crimes against humanity" (The Daily Star Bangla, 12 February 2025), and these crimes were carried out under the direct supervision of Sheikh Hasina. According to a UN spokesperson, the responsibility for these orders — known as command responsibility — lies squarely with Sheikh Hasina (The Daily Star, 14 February 2025).

Although Bangladesh has experienced authoritarian regimes multiple times in its history, the nature and brutality of Sheikh Hasina's rule were unprecedented. The most extreme manifestation of this cruelty was on display during the July–August 2024 uprising, when in less than three weeks, at least 1,400 people were killed — 13 per cent of them children — and over 14,000 were injured. This brutality was not limited to 2024 alone. Between 2009 and 2023, at least 2,699 people were victims of extrajudicial killings, 677 were forcibly disappeared, and 1,048 died while in the custody of security forces (Bonik Barta, 13 August 2024).

Due to the horrifying nature of this regime, there has emerged a broad consensus following the fall of the Hasina regime: institutional mechanisms must be established to ensure that authoritarianism cannot rise again. As a first step towards this goal, it is essential to fully understand the nature of Sheikh Hasina's rule.

Three Forms of Authoritarianism

Authoritarian rule is not a new phenomenon in any country. The history of the modern phase of state formation shows that the development and expansion of democracy as an ideal and as a system of governance have not progressed in a linear fashion; rather, they have advanced in waves. As a result, at certain points in time, the number of democratic countries has increased, while at other times, the number of countries under undemocratic or authoritarian rule has grown.

In the 20th century, two forms of authoritarian rule became prominent — one being military rule, and the other being one-party systems, most of which were rooted in socialist ideologies. However, by the end of the 20th century, a new type of authoritarianism emerged: personalistic autocracy. Sheikh Hasina's 16-year rule, particularly from 2011 onward, took on the characteristics of a personalist regime.

Features of Sheikh Hasina's Personalist Autocracy

The traits of personalistic autocratic rule began to surface in Sheikh Hasina's statements and actions as early as 2011. By around 2014, Hasina made it evident to the citizens of Bangladesh that she was the sole centre of power and that her authority was beyond question.

Once Sheikh Hasina had succeeded in dismantling institutions — including civil society organisations — and believed that she had established a kind of ideological dominance over society and politics, she institutionalised this system under the conviction of her own invincibility. This is reflected in a 2018 statement by Mohammad Hanif, Joint General Secretary of the Awami League: "As long as Sheikh Hasina lives, the Awami League will remain in power" (Bangla Tribune, 25 April 2018). Hanif's remark sparked controversy, but it had no impact on Hasina or her party leaders. In 2022, then Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal said, "We must try to keep Sheikh Hasina in power for life" (Dhaka Times, 21 May 2022).

One of the clearest examples of Sheikh Hasina's personalist mindset is her repeated use of "I" in public speeches. She often spoke in a way that suggested the government and the state are personally embodied in her — that what citizens receive from the state is something she is individually bestowing. The rights or entitlements of citizens do not seem to factor into her considerations.

A key early instance of her bypassing institutions and establishing her decisions as final occurred in 2011, when she unilaterally overturned the recommendations made after 26 parliamentary committee meetings and decided to abolish the caretaker government system. Another example of her unilateral decision-making, at the cost of national interest, was her role in signing the contract with Indian power company Adani.

Furthermore, in 2023, when nominating Md. Shahabuddin as the President, Sheikh Hasina did not consult any party committee. Even top leaders of her own party were left in the dark about the nomination. After speaking with 15 senior leaders of the party, one reporter noted: "Some leaders described the selection of Md. Shahabuddin as a 'family decision'" (Prothom Alo, 14 February 2023).

This trend of de-institutionalisation gradually became evident to the general public. As a result, ordinary citizens also stopped placing trust in formal institutions and instead began directly appealing to Sheikh Hasina for the resolution of any problem. The extent of this is reflected in several news reports from 2020. In January, when the stock market experienced instability, Kazi Firoz Rashid, a Member of Parliament from the ruling party's ally, the Jatiya Party, publicly appealed for Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's direct intervention. In a parliamentary discussion, he stated that if the Prime Minister intervened, the stock market would recover (The Asian Age, 16 January 2020)

Another hallmark of personalistic rules is dynastic politics. While dynastic rule is not uncommon in South Asia, under Sheikh Hasina's tenure it has manifested in two specific ways in Bangladesh. First, through the accumulation of state resources and privileges by herself and her family; and second, through an implicit claim to power succession — linking the foundation of the state and notions of patriotism so intimately with her family that any opposition to the dynastic arrangement is framed as an act of treason.

Although Sheikh Hasina claimed in 2019, "By family, I mean myself, my younger sister Rehana, and our five children. Beyond that, we have no family" (Sara Bangla, 13 September 2019), the prominence of her family under her rule — and the fact that many beneficiaries of her regime are indeed family members — is evident in the fact that from 2009 to 2024, 15 members of the Hasina family have served as Members of Parliament, with at least eight holding positions as ministers or state ministers (Ittefaq, 12 October 2024).

A crucial element of personalistic autocracy is deification of leaders. The treatment of Hasina herself and her father Sheikh Mujib exemplifies this. While Sheikh Mujib undeniably played a central role in the Bengali nationalist movement of the 1960s in then-Pakistan, the movement was not the achievement of a single individual. Yet, state apparatuses and media created a narrative that provided the idea that Mujib was the only leader at that time. The narrative was institutionalised through the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution wherein Sheikh Mujib was designated as the "Father of the Nation," and a provision was added making it mandatory to display his portrait in all government and non-government offices (Article 4A of the Constitution). This means that the absence of such a portrait would legally constitute a violation of the Constitution.

Worse yet, one could not question this provision. Because Article 7A of the Constitution states that any act or attempt to undermine the confidence, belief, or conviction in any provision of the Constitution will be considered a punishable offence and an act of "sedition," with the penalty extending up to capital punishment. The Digital Security Act enacted in 2018 also included a clause stipulating punishment for "insulting the Father of the Nation" (Article 21).

In addition, across the country, numerous sculptures, portraits, and murals of Sheikh Mujib began to be erected. According to a 2021 report from the police department, there were 1,022 sculptures and murals of Sheikh Mujib installed throughout the country (The Daily Star Bangla, 12 January 2021). In 2020, the observance of Mujib's birth centenary turned him into an omnipresent figure across the nation. Through this process, Hasina elevated her father into a form of personality cult. One researcher described the national environment in the following way: "His picture is in every school and government office, on currency notes, and on every road. Bridges, hospitals, government programmes, and sports events are named after him" (Arild Engelsen Rudd. 'Bangabandhu as the eternal sovereign: on the construction of a civil religion', Religion, 52(4); 532–549, 2022).

In a personalised regime, the person in power often places themselves at the centre of a cult of personality. But in Hasina's case, while she had built her own uncontested political dominance, she simultaneously legitimises her authority through the glorification and deification of Sheikh Mujib.

Ali Riaz, distinguished professor at Illinois State University, chair of the Constitution Reform Commission, and currently serving as vice chairman of the National Consensus Commission. The opinion expressed here is solely that of the author.