Why does Bangladeshi media do post-mortem journalism?

If you take a trip down memory lane to see what was going on and what terrified the press, people and businesses during the interim regime, the overwhelming evidence would emerge that mobs were forcing the government to take many major decisions

Shakhawat Liton

20 February, 2026, 09:35 pm

Last modified: 21 February, 2026, 07:06 pm

Illustration: TBS

It requires little elaboration to recall how the fallen government of Sheikh Hasina curtailed press freedom as part of a broader strategy to consolidate power, weaken institutional oversight and monopolise the national narrative.

Critical voices were sidelined, dissent was equated with hostility against the state, and journalism increasingly operated within invisible red lines.

After her dramatic exit, the media sphere filled with retrospective analyses, probing the "cause of death" of her administration and the absence of a safe political landing.

In the aftermath, revelations emerged detailing, among other issues, alleged financial irregularities involving powerful business figures such as Saiful Alam, raising serious questions about the integrity of the country's banking and financial sector during that period.

Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel

Dawn of a false hope

Everybody hoped that there would be a period of stocktaking and healing after the period of fascistic free run. It was widely expected that the post-uprising Bangladesh would usher in a new era of freedom.

But it did not take much time to dawn on all that it was a false hope.

Those who took charge to run the post-uprising Bangladesh seemed to have taken no lesson from the inglorious demise of the Hasina regime.

The rise of mobocracy under the eyes of Muhammad Yunus and his advisers put Bangladesh media in a new normal where fear, this time from mobs instead of the state, shaped journalism's boundaries.

The press was denied a fear-free environment to investigate and expose many questionable decisions. The chief adviser, who exercised both executive and legislative powers in absence of the parliament, never faced even the timid press. Not a single press conference was held in his one and half year in office.

Were all his activities above questioning?

After the elected regime took oath on 17 February this year, the fear of mobs have diminished somewhat as the government has issued a warning against such practices.

So now, it is time once again for a post-mortem analysis. Some economists and experts have already called for auditing all the agreements and contracts signed in the past one and a half years. In the coming days, therefore, readers may expect more reports and analyses on the Yunus government.

To avert repetition

In post-Yunus Bangladesh, post-mortem journalism may serve to document events for historical record-keeping, particularly in situations where regimes attempt to control the narrative.

This process may focus on identifying the root causes of failure, documenting wrongdoing, and examining the events that led to widespread morbid dysfunction.

Studying post-mortem reports is important to avert the repetition of history.

James Madison's nightmare

When James Madison, the Father of the US Constitution, was working on his draft, he had extensively studied the ancient Athenian democracy that had turned into a mobocracy and at one point executed Socrates, one of the most influential philosophers of all time. He found the root causes of the backsliding of Athens' democracy: it was mobocracy.

Ancient Athenian democracy is often termed a "mobocracy" (or ochlocracy) because its direct, majority-rule system lacked safeguards against emotional, hasty or poorly informed decisions by the populace.

Without checks and balances, the Assembly was susceptible to manipulation by demagogues, turning public policy into irrational, erratic "mob rule".

James Madison had traveled to Philadelphia in 1787 with Athens on his mind. He had spent the year before the Constitutional Convention reading two trunkful books on the history of failed democracies sent to him from Paris by Thomas Jefferson.

"Madison was determined, in drafting the constitution, to avoid the fate of those 'ancient and modern confederacies', which he believed had succumbed to rule by demagogues and mobs," wrote Jeffrey Rosen, a professor of law at George Washington University, for The Atlantic in 2018.

He further wrote, "Madison's reading convinced him that direct democracies — such as the assembly in Athens, where 6,000 citizens were required for a quorum — unleashed populist passions that overcame the cool, deliberative reason prized above all by Enlightenment thinkers."

"'In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever characters composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason,' Madison argued in The Federalist Papers, the essays he wrote (along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay) to build support for the ratification of the Constitution. 'Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob'."

The founders of the US Constitution designed a government that would resist mob rule. "They didn't anticipate how strong the mob could become," Rosen further wrote in the political context of the US having Donald Trump elected president since 2016.

"America Is Living James Madison's Nightmare" was the headline of his article.

After the resurgence of Donald Trump in the last election, some analysts are saying American people are now living James Madison's worst nightmare.

If we're going to use Athens to study Bangladesh's last year and a half, the first question we need to ask is, "Did Athens succeed?"

One thing we know about Athenian democracy is that it didn't last.

Silence facing mob's clamour

If you take a trip down memory lane with your colleagues or friends to see what was going on and what terrified the press, people and businesses during the interim regime, the overwhelming evidence would emerge that the mob was forcing the government to take many major decisions.

The government remained silent when mobs clamoured with their demands and terrorised the opponents. Whatever the reform the Yunus government desperately tried to impose may face the same fate as before.

Let us now ask another question: Did you live James Madison's nightmare in the last one and a half years?

That question can help answer another common one that people at large have regarding the media in Bangladesh: Why do we do post-mortem journalism?

The answer is simple: Without a free environment, a free and independent media cannot function. Check any global indices, be it press freedom or rule of law or democracy or corruption, Bangladesh always remains at the bottom.

Expecting an independent media in such a situation is akin to expecting a mango from a jackfruit tree.

Still curious? Name any renowned international media outlet and check those global indices, and then find those countries' standing on the indices; the naked truth lies there.

Both judiciary and media need a free and democratic environment to function independently. The executive branch does not care for any such enabling environment. It creates its own path. What it needs first is to tame the parliament.

Let us never forget the attacks and arsons at two national dailies on the night of 18 December — a dark night for press freedom.

Damocles' sword always kept hanging over the freedom of press both during the Hasina and Yunus administrations.

PM without official residence

There is another intriguing fact that we must question.

Bangladesh's new Prime Minister Tarique Rahman is among the few world leaders who do not have a dedicated official residence.

Does it sound weird? Not really.

The designated official residence of Bangladesh's prime minister, the Ganabhaban, has been turned into the July Mass Uprising Memorial Museum by the interim government.

Remember the day of Hasina's downfall, on 5 August, when tens of thousands of people marched to the GanaBhaban, leading to chaos. People took everything in sight, and even demolished parts of the property.

On 5 September 2024, the interim government declared it would turn the Ganabhaban into a museum to preserve the memories of the mass uprising in July.

Again, taking a trip down memory lane, the media felt intimidated to question the Yunus government's decision. Why? They feared mob attacks, as social media posts bristled with such suggestions against media that had the audacity to question their actions.

Now, the newly elected prime minister has no designated official residence. Before he took the oath as PM, media reports questioned where Tarique Rahman would live once sworn in.

Recent media reports say former Chief Adviser Yunus will vacate the state guest house Jamuna, after which it will be prepared as the official residence of Prime Minister Tarique Rahman.

But is Tarique Rahman a guest like Yunus, who assumed the office for a transitional period?

Should Jamuna now be renamed as Ganabhaban, the people's house?