“Fascism” has become the buzzword of the day, especially as Donald Trump is often labeled as a representation of it in the run-up to the US presidential election. Closer to home, Bangladesh’s former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s 16-year tenure also attracts the same label.

In fact, it seems no political speech or social media post is complete these days without the mention of “fascism” at least a few times.

Most recently, in a recent interview with the Financial Times, Chief Adviser Dr Muhammad Yunus accused the Bangladesh Awami League of exhibiting “all the hallmarks of fascism”, saying it “has no place” in the country’s politics at the moment.

Later, Hasina’s son Sajeeb Wazed Joy also hit back at Dr Yunus as he posted on Facebook: “Unelected, unconstitutional Yunus he sounds more like a fascist than anyone else Bangladesh right now. You cannot ban the oldest and largest political party in Bangladesh, the party that led independence”.

There are other voices both at home and abroad warning that while one fascist regime has been overthrown, another may be on the horizon.

So we decided to take a deep dive into the subject and explore what all the fuss about fascism is really about and what the future holds for the country.

According to social scientist Dr Iftekhar Uddin Chowdhury, former vice-chancellor of Chittagong University, fascism is “mainly political”, rooted in vested interests and enabled by corrupt practices.

He characterizes it as a system in which the state is manipulated to serve the wishes of a single leader, frequently by suppressing opposition and silencing dissent.

Dr. Chowdhury notes that between 1919 and 1945, fascism had a prominent presence in various European countries, where far-right nationalism emerged. This ideology excluded opposition, giving priority to authoritarian rule that disregarded individual liberties.

The concept of fascism emerged in Italy after the First World War and gradually spread to various countries in Europe, including Germany. The rise of Nazism under Hitler in Germany represented a form of fascism, facilitating the emergence of controversial leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini across Europe.

Fascist parties aimed for absolute dominance of state power, seeking control over various institutions, including the church, judiciary, universities, social clubs, and sports organizations. They believed in the absolute authority of a single individual, the head of the political party also serving as head of state, vested with all power.

“During the tenure of the previous government, we saw all the signs of this,” says Dr Chowdhury.

to expert in electoral issues and local administration Dr. Tofail Ahmed, also a member of the electoral system reform commission appointed by the interim government, the foundation of fascism under Hasina’s regime can also be linked to the concept of Bonapartism.

Originally articulated by Marx in Louis Bonaparte’s 18th BrumaireBonapartism describes a leader who gains power by appealing to popular sentiment but gradually dismantles democratic structures to centralize authority.

In Bangladesh, the roots of this phenomenon can be traced back to 1973-1974, under Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who tried to centralize power by merging his authority with the state machinery.

“Over the years, Hasina – Mujib’s daughter – has built on these Bonapartist foundations, promoting an authoritarian regime characterized by a systematic erosion of institutional autonomy throughout her tenure,” Dr Ahmed said.

However, can Hasina really be equated with Trump as a fascist? Kazi Mohammad Mahbobor Rahman, an associate professor of political science at the University of Dhaka, is skeptical.

“Calling Trump a fascist at this point is difficult. After all, Trump was democratically elected as president. It’s not like he was elected and then clung to power indefinitely. In many other countries, once someone is democratically elected, they may not transfer power. again, allowing their personal identity to become politically dominant,” he explains.

Rahman further elaborates that when a political system revolves around the identity of a single person, with everyone believing that that individual embodies the whole of politics, or when politics is limited to an exclusive group that sees all others as enemies of the state, then fascism . appear. In such cases the person, the government and the state merge into one.

But if there is electoral competition, it cannot be categorized as fascism; that scenario would be more accurately described as electoral autocracy. While certain elements of a fascist identity can be seen in Trump, he is still part of an electoral contest.

“So you could call him a bearer of electoral autocracy, establishing authoritarianism through democratic means. The opportunity to label him a fascist has not yet fully arisen,” says Rahman.

Dr. Ahmed agrees, saying, “In the United States, the system itself does not breed fascism; instead, an individual, like Trump, can embody those tendencies and even win a popular mandate without the same systematic reinforcement.”

He also draws a parallel between the recent mass uprising in Bangladesh and historical events such as the Arab Spring, particularly the 2011 revolution in Tunisia, which saw the ouster of another long-standing authoritarian regime.

While Tunisia’s uprising initially led to democratic advances, the country later faced political instability, economic stagnation, and a resurgence of autocratic elements.

Dr. Ahmed warns that Bangladesh could face a similar fate if it fails to dismantle the institutional structures and political culture that enabled Hasina’s rule.

He opines that the overthrow of a single leader is only the first step; for a truly democratic transition, the country must reform the deeper power dynamics that sustained the authoritarian system.

“With influence divided between the caretaker government, the military and student groups, Bangladesh’s political landscape is fragmented but ripe with potential for reform. Achieving a stable democratic system will require addressing the structural and economic underpinnings of authoritarianism—something that requires patience and careful action. “, he advises us.

He goes on to add that to prevent any future leader from easily blending personal power with state control, it is essential to dismantle the influence of entrenched interests and cultural forces.

Rahman, however, does not believe there is any chance of another fascist regime emerging immediately after the previous one is ousted.

“Fascism does not develop overnight. The previous government fell only three months ago, and fascism cannot take root in such a short time. Understanding fascism requires observing a long period. Only after someone remains in power for over a long period of time, fascist characteristics begin to emerge,” he says.

He concluded by saying that if the Hasina government had not been in power continuously for the past 15 years, if there had not been three illegitimate elections, or if others had been allowed to contest those elections, fascism would probably have he would never have. a chance to appear.