From Zia’s BNP to Today’s BNP: What Has Changed?

This history is also a history of three leadership eras: Ziaur Rahman’s BNP, Khaleda Zia’s BNP, and Tarique Rahman’s BNP. Three different periods. Three different political realities. Three different sets of challenges. So the question is: How much has the BNP changed from Zia’s BNP to Tarique’s BNP?

An even bigger question is: The leadership has changed. The times have changed. But has the BNP’s ideology remained the same? This question is particularly important now because the BNP has returned to state power after a long period. Following the 2026 election, the party formed the government under the leadership of Tarique Rahman. Therefore, the return to power is not merely a moment of celebration. It is also a moment for self-reflection.

Zia’s BNP: A New Political Project

The BNP was born out of a particular political reality. The country was unstable. The state was going through multiple crises. Political institutions were weak. The economy was in turmoil. Social divisions were intense. It was against this backdrop that Ziaur Rahman founded the BNP.

From the very beginning, the party had a distinctive character. It was a broad-based political platform where people from different political viewpoints found a place. A significant number of young people were also part of the party’s founding leadership.

At the heart of Zia’s politics were Bangladeshi nationalism, multiparty politics, the idea of national unity, economic development and self-reliance. He also sought changes in the state-controlled economic system. These ideas were given a political framework through the 19-point programme.

In other words, the BNP was not created merely as an electoral party. It also presented itself as a political project.

Zia raised a fundamental question: What should Bangladesh’s state and national identity be? He sought the answer through Bangladeshi nationalism. This nationalism was a political interpretation offered as an alternative to Bengali nationalism. At its core were Bangladesh’s territory, independence, sovereignty, history, culture and distinct identity.

However, the BNP’s founding vision was not one-dimensional. People representing various political currents were part of the party. As a result, the BNP was a “big tent” party from the very beginning.

An assessment by Dhaka University Professor Sirajul Islam Choudhury is relevant here. According to him, the BNP did not have a clearly defined ideological identity when it was founded; its ideological character gradually became clearer after its establishment. This is an important observation because it suggests that the BNP’s ideology was not carved in stone from the outset. It evolved over time.

This point is important to remember because the same question has returned to the BNP today. Times have changed. So does the party’s political philosophy also require a new interpretation?

Khaleda Zia’s BNP: From Party to Mass Movement

After the death of Ziaur Rahman, the BNP faced a major crisis. The founder was gone. The party, which had been in state power, was confronted with a leadership vacuum. Khaleda Zia then entered politics.

Initially, she did not want to enter politics. But the political circumstances drew her in. Eventually, she took over the leadership of the BNP and became one of the principal faces of the anti-Ershad movement.

This was where the character of the BNP underwent a major transformation. Zia’s BNP had emerged from the experience of exercising state power. Khaleda Zia’s BNP became a party of movements—a party of the streets and a party committed to restoring democracy.

During the anti-Ershad movement, the BNP remained on the streets for a prolonged period and joined forces with other political parties. Ultimately, after the fall of Ershad in 1990, the BNP won the 1991 election.

Khaleda Zia’s greatest political achievement was transforming the BNP into a mass-based political force. Zia founded the BNP; Khaleda took it into people’s homes across the country. This was one of the greatest transformations in the history of the BNP.

After 1991, the BNP returned to governing the country. The party also achieved a major victory in 2001. The BNP’s own history records Khaleda Zia’s three terms in government.

Another major characteristic of Khaleda Zia’s politics was her political personality: uncompromising, determined and combative. She stood on the streets against authoritarianism. She fought against the fascist Hasina at the risk of her life and never compromised for a moment. These qualities not only made her the leader of the BNP but also turned her into a political symbol for a large section of the population.

Political scientist Dilara Chowdhury described Khaleda Zia as a kind of “guardian figure” not only for the BNP but also for Bangladesh’s political landscape. She also remarked that her death marked the end of a stable and experienced presence in Bangladeshi politics.

This assessment highlights an important aspect of Khaleda Zia’s political role. She was not merely a party leader; she was also a symbol of a political era.

Then Came Tarique Rahman

The BNP is now facing a new era. Zia is gone. Khaleda Zia is also gone. Tarique Rahman is now leading the party.

This raises the question: Is Tarique Rahman’s BNP simply a continuation of Zia and Khaleda Zia’s BNP, or is it a new BNP?

There is no simple answer.

On the one hand, Tarique Rahman carries the political legacy of the Zia family. He is the son of Ziaur Rahman and Khaleda Zia. The leadership of the BNP has also come to him as part of that continuing legacy.

On the other hand, his political experience is entirely different.

When Zia founded the BNP, Tarique Rahman was 12 years old. When Khaleda Zia took over the party’s leadership, he was in his 30s. Tarique Rahman has now assumed full leadership of the party at an age approaching 60. He spent a long period outside the country. This prolonged absence shaped his political experience in a different way.

There is an important distinction here. Zia was the founder. Khaleda Zia was the leader of the struggle. Tarique must become the leader of transformation.

The reason is that the Bangladesh he faces today is not the Bangladesh of Zia or Khaleda Zia’s era. The new Bangladesh has new questions.

Today’s Bangladesh is much younger, much more digital and much more connected.

People have far greater access to information. There are also many more avenues for political expression. Young people no longer participate in politics only through party meetings. They engage in politics on social media. They analyse politics on YouTube. They listen to podcasts. They follow international politics and compare Bangladesh’s political changes with those taking place in other countries.

Most importantly, they ask questions.

Why? How? For whom?

For this generation, it is difficult to conduct politics based solely on tradition. “My father founded this party” is not enough for them. “We have fought for so many years” is not enough either.

They want to know: What is your plan for the Bangladesh of tomorrow?

This is the greatest test facing Tarique Rahman’s BNP. The legacy of Zia will remain. The history of Khaleda Zia’s struggle will remain. But that legacy must be translated into the realities of a new era.

Has the Ideology Changed?

This is the central question.

Bangladeshi nationalism was important in the BNP’s founding politics. Multiparty democracy was important. National unity was important. Economic development was important.

The BNP still speaks of these values today. Tarique Rahman’s political philosophy has also placed emphasis on Bangladeshi nationalism, democracy and opposition to authoritarianism. Political analysts, while examining his recent statements, have also pointed to ideological continuity.

So, has nothing changed?

Of course, things have changed.

The language of an ideology may remain the same, but its application has to evolve.

Take nationalism, for example. During Zia’s time, nationalism was largely a question of state identity. Today, nationalism cannot be confined merely to questions of identity.

What does nationalism mean today?

For a young person, is nationalism simply about the national flag? Or does it mean access to a good job? A quality university? A corruption-free administration? An independent judiciary? A safe society? A dignified life?

These questions must be answered.

Because political identity is no longer shaped only by slogans. It is also shaped by people’s lived experiences.

Is Khaleda Zia’s Legacy Merely a Memory?

Khaleda Zia’s greatest political legacy was her struggle for democracy. She is remembered for her uncompromising stance and her long political struggle.

But if that legacy is confined merely to photographs, posters and commemorative events, its political meaning will be lost.

To preserve Khaleda Zia’s legacy, democracy must be established through political behaviour.

There must be room for differing opinions within the party. Political disagreement cannot be treated as enmity. While in power, the rights of opposition parties must be guaranteed. The independence of the media must be protected. State institutions must be kept free from partisan influence.

These will be the real tests of Khaleda Zia’s democratic legacy.

The Biggest Challenge for the New BNP

The greatest challenge facing Tarique Rahman now is to transform the BNP from a party dependent on political inheritance into a modern political institution.

This transformation will not be easy because the BNP has long been known as a leadership-centred party.

For a long time, both of Bangladesh’s major political parties have been associated with personality-centred politics. Political scientist Dilara Chowdhury has also described both the BNP and the Awami League as personality-centred parties. She has viewed Tarique Rahman’s assumption of the leadership following Khaleda Zia as a natural continuation of that tradition.

But the question is: Is this personality-centred model sufficient for the BNP’s future?

Probably not.

A modern political party cannot stand on one leader alone.

It needs institutions. It needs policies. It needs research. It needs capable leadership. It needs internal accountability. It needs mechanisms for developing new leaders—especially young leaders.

One major characteristic of Zia’s BNP was its ability to bring new people into politics. Tarique Rahman now has an opportunity to do something similar.

The new generation should not merely be turned into party workers; they should be made policymakers. They should be brought into the party’s central decision-making process. Young people entering politics from universities should not simply be placed at the front of rallies. They should be given space for political thought and policymaking.

It is easy to talk about change while in opposition. It is much harder to implement change after coming to power.

But the BNP now has that opportunity.

The party can demonstrate what the new BNP looks like. It can reduce politicisation within the administration. It can take a firm position against corruption. It can ensure the independence of the judiciary. It can allow the media to operate freely. It can strengthen state institutions. It can respect dissenting opinions.

If it does these things, the BNP can redefine its political identity.

But if the old culture of exercising power returns, the question will inevitably arise: What is the difference between the new BNP and the old BNP?

Not Legacy Versus Transformation

Ultimately, the issue may not be “legacy versus transformation”; rather, it is about transforming through legacy.

The BNP can learn statecraft from Zia’s BNP. It can learn mass mobilisation from Khaleda Zia’s BNP. Tarique’s BNP must add modern state thinking, the aspirations of a new generation and institution-based democracy.

Only then can a bridge be built between the three eras.

Otherwise, the three eras will remain separate chapters.

Zia’s BNP was the BNP of establishment.

Khaleda’s BNP was the BNP of struggle.

Now Tarique’s BNP must become the BNP of transformation.

That is his greatest political test.

Zia’s name can provide a legacy. Khaleda’s struggle can provide inspiration. But no one can hand over the future as an inheritance.

The future has to be created.

And the responsibility for creating that future now rests with Tarique Rahman.

Forty-eight years after the establishment of the BNP, the most important question is not how many times the BNP has come to power.

The question is: What kind of political party does the BNP actually want to become after 48 years?

Zia’s BNP?

Khaleda’s BNP?

Or a new BNP that carries their legacy?

Perhaps the answer is: all three.

But there is a condition.

The new BNP cannot simply carry the name and memories of the old BNP. It must express the values of the old BNP in the language of a new era.

It must connect nationalism with the dreams of the new generation.

It must establish democracy within the party as well.

It must connect development with people’s quality of life.

And political leadership must move away from dependence on individuals and towards institutions.

Only then can it be said that the BNP has changed from Zia’s BNP to Tarique’s BNP—not by abandoning its ideals, but by understanding the times, accepting new realities, learning from history and taking the new generation along.

And that will be the BNP’s greatest political transformation.

Author: Former General Secretary, Dhaka Union of Journalists