Faith, family and free markets: Understanding Khaleda Zia’s political philosophy

The death of former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia has sparked renewed discussion about her political legacy. Assessments of her beliefs and policy approach have ranged across the political spectrum, from right to left. Yet placing her neatly within any ideological category is difficult without understanding the specific meanings of these terms in the context of Bangladesh during her time in power.

Khaleda Zia was fundamentally a pragmatist, prioritising practical outcomes over rigid ideological commitments. Her policies were shaped by global trends that emerged at the end of the Cold War, around the time of her first election, when liberal democracy gained ascendancy following the collapse of the Eastern Bloc.

The post-Cold War period also saw a global convergence of political party positions. This was evident in Bangladesh, where both the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the Awami League moved closer to the centre during the 1990s and 2000s by endorsing parliamentarism, basic civil liberties, and market-oriented economic policies.

In this context, the label "liberal" can reasonably be applied to Khaleda Zia, though it applied equally to most mainstream political leaders of the era. Her reserved and introverted public persona allowed observers to project competing interpretations onto her politics, and she appeared willing to adopt whichever political identity proved most expedient at a given moment.

This flexibility did not mean an absence of core principles. Like her husband, she was a committed Bangladeshi nationalist who prioritised national sovereignty and sought to limit foreign entanglements, including involvement in the US-led War on Terror. Her foreign policy emphasised trade relationships over formal military or geopolitical alliances. Notable exceptions included China and Southeast Asia, pursued through the "Look East" policy, which helped distinguish her stance from more overtly pro-India counterparts.

On domestic policy, she displayed a blend of traditionalism and progressivism comparable to centre-right traditions in North America and Europe, such as George W Bush's "compassionate conservatism" or Angela Merkel's Christian democracy. Both leaders, whose tenures overlapped with Khaleda Zia's, expanded health and education reforms while relying on private and religious institutions to complement the limits of the state.

She also recognised the role of social welfare programmes for women and children as instruments of economic growth, while avoiding direct interference in the social structures these groups depended upon. She was conservative, but neither reactionary nor collectivist. Her rhetoric projected the image of a benevolent maternal figure, attentive to the vulnerable while emphasising faith, family, and self-reliance.

By her second term, however, she had become deeply embedded in pragmatic power-brokering, forming controversial alliances in pursuit of electoral dominance. This strategy ultimately unravelled during the 2006–08 political crisis. In her final years in opposition, positioning herself primarily as a counterweight to the ruling party became her central political function, exposing the limitations of transactional politics. This shift disrupted the moderate conservative movement and political brand she had once sought to cultivate.

Ultimately, Khaleda Zia's political outlook reflected an attempt to balance liberal cosmopolitanism, strong engagement with the Indo-Pacific, and sensitivity to the values of a Muslim-majority society. She was a cautious and strategic coalition builder who understood the complexities of Bangladeshi politics. The setbacks and missed opportunities at the end of her career prevented her from fully articulating a coherent doctrine to pass on to her successors, leaving lingering questions about the deeper convictions of the real Khaleda Zia.

Aamer Tahseen is a New York-based writer who focuses on politics and public policy issues.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.