THE term ‘revolution’ has gained significant traction in Bangladesh over the past few months. I have observed that various stakeholders, including media outlets, political activists, student bodies and even academics, have started to characterise the events surrounding the fall of Sheikh Hasina on August 5 as a revolution. Some have referred to this movement as the ‘Gen Z revolution,’ highlighting that it was largely driven and organised by Generation Z. Some international media outlets have labelled it as the first ‘Gen Z revolution.’ Additionally, it has been described by others as the ‘monsoon revolution’ or the ‘Bangla spring.’ The proliferation of these diverse labels is contributing to a rather perplexing historical interpretation of that event at this very early stage of Hasina’s regime change.
Critical inquiries regarding the classification of Hasina’s regime change as a revolution should come up. If it is to be regarded as such, my question is what concrete changes have occurred in Bangladesh over the past two and a half months that could be classified as revolutionary? Conversely, if this change does not meet the demand of a revolution, then what would be the most appropriate academic terminology to describe this political transformation? Should it be characterised as a mass uprising or a mass movement?
The event that transpired on August 5 stands as one of the most significant episodes in our recent history, particularly following the liberation war of 1971. It fundamentally altered the power dynamics of an autocratic regime and its associated deep state. The movement unexpectedly struck at the core of this nexus, leading to the swift downfall of the Hasina government merely a week after the resurgence of the movement in late July. As an active participant and observer of this movement, I have witnessed its rapid evolution from a close position. Therefore, I would refrain from labeling this movement as a revolution. I prefer to characterise it, instead, as a mass uprising, akin to those that took place in 1969 and 1990. I contend that mischaracterising the movement could result in historical misinterpretation and undermine the significance of the concept of revolution.
In this context, I would like to refer Hannah Arendt, a distinguished German-American historian and philosopher, who conducted an in-depth analysis of the concept of revolution in her seminal work, On Revolution, published in 1963. In that book, she produced a comprehensive philosophical and political theories concerning power, authority and human agency while she examined the revolutionary dynamics of two of history’s most significant revolutions: the American and the French revolution. Arendt suggested that a revolution is a fundamental and transformative event which aims to establish political freedom and initiates a new order.
In contrast to other forms of conflict, such as civil wars, mutiny or rebellion, which may not necessarily result in new governance structures or enduring changes, revolutions attempt to create a new societal foundation predicated on liberty, democratic participation and, often, a constitution. She perceived revolution as a distinctive opportunity to reshape society and governance, rooted in a collective aspiration to commence anew.
Arendt made a distinct contrast between the American and French revolutions, using them as exemplars to illustrate the dynamics of successful and unsuccessful revolutionary movements, respectively. She praised the American Revolution for its focus on the establishment of a new constitution and a framework for political rights and active citizenship, which she viewed as a true embodiment of revolutionary ideals. Conversely, she critiqued the French Revolution for its descent into terror and violence, attributing this outcome to social suffering and the pursuit of liberation from oppression, rather than the realisation of genuine freedom. This indicates that the objectives of the revolution must extend beyond mere reactions to oppressive regimes or adverse political orders and, rather, should produce a deliberate reform and radically uproot the previous political order. Until that happens, events of radical political change cannot be called a revolution.
It is important to acknowledge that a revolution embraces both ideological and philosophical standpoints. Without a strong ethical foundation, a political change is unlikely to sustain. Moreover, we should recognise that a revolution is a prolonged process; it does not unfold in a single day, week or even a month. Constant effort and a coordinated approach to mobilising public opinions are essential in this process. As we reflect on the events of August 5, we should keep this perspective in mind. The term ‘revolution’ often captures fancy attention and can lead to sensationalism in the political arena. However, if it does not result in a meaningful change, it can also lead to disappointment and disillusionment. We have experienced that in the case of 1969 and 1990. Therefore, it is prudent to avoid hastily labelling the significant events of August 5 as a revolution at this early stage.
Ìý
Muhammad Asiful Basar, a doctoral candidate at the Institute of Development Policy in the University of Antwerp, is a senior lecturer in history and philosophy in the North South University.