The students who spearheaded last year’s uprising in Bangladesh may have succeeded in toppling Sheikh Hasina’s authoritarian rule, but their attempt to translate that momentum into a viable political movement is destined to fail. Their newly formed National Citizens Party (NCP) is built on idealism rather than political reality. In a country as deeply polarized as Bangladesh, where political loyalty is firmly entrenched between the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the remnants of the Awami League, this new party has little room to grow.
The uprising that these students led was chaotic, and in many ways, reckless. While their protests tapped into legitimate grievances about corruption and democratic backsliding, the movement also unleashed lawlessness across the country. The collapse of the police force, mob violence, and attacks on political opponents created a power vacuum that the military had to step in to fill. If these same leaders now claim to be the future of Bangladesh’s democracy, why should the public trust them after witnessing the disorder they helped ignite?
Moreover, history is not on their side. Third-party movements in Bangladesh have never been able to break through the dominance of the two major political forces. The BNP, now the country’s largest party, is already positioning itself as the alternative to the old regime. Even as the Awami League crumbled, it was the BNP—not student activists—who were poised to take over. The NCP’s attempt to carve out a centrist space is naive; Bangladesh’s politics are driven by party loyalty, patronage, and decades of rivalry. Voters do not abandon their allegiances easily.
Additionally, the NCP’s biggest problem is its leader, Nahid Islam. His decision to resign from the interim government to form this party has already sparked criticism, particularly from the BNP, which argues that he unfairly benefited from his government position. That accusation will stick. If the NCP were truly independent, why did its leader wait until now to break away? Many will see this as an opportunistic move rather than a principled one.
The students may believe that their movement represents a new political awakening, but mass protests and governing are two entirely different challenges. Protesters can mobilize frustration, but they cannot magically transform it into electoral support, especially in a system that rewards established networks of power. If anything, the chaos they helped create last year may have only strengthened the appeal of traditional parties that promise order and stability.
The reality is that Bangladesh’s future will be decided by the BNP and the forces left behind by the Awami League—not by a group of idealistic students who believe that the energy of a past revolution can carry them into power. The NCP will struggle to gain traction, and as the country moves toward its next election, the old political forces will reassert themselves. The students may have changed Bangladesh’s history, but they are unlikely to shape its future.