Chief Adviser Yunus’ talk at Chatham House offers his idea for a ‘New Bangladesh’, a top-down fundamental reworking, a democratic roadmap but with no lanes, writes Arnav Raje.
When Professor Muhammad Yunus took the stage at Chatham House this week, it was not just a ceremonial talk – it was a blueprint. Speaking as the Chief Adviser of Bangladesh’s interim government, Yunus laid out his agenda in clear terms, framed around what can best be described as a three-pronged plan: reform, trial, and elections. The speech, delivered before an audience of global policy analysts, journalists and eminent British Bangladeshis, revealed his deep-seated ambition to set Bangladesh’s political institutions straight before stepping down.
Central to this ambition is what he called the ‘July Charter’ – a reform document being compiled from the recommendations of commissions set up to review government institutions. These recommendations will be passed through a new “consensus building commission” comprising political parties, and then offered to voters as a comprehensive post-reform policy sheet. But when asked why voters weren’t directly involved in shaping this charter, Yunus argued that “complex political structures” like “bicameral legislatures” were beyond public comprehension and can fall prey to vote-buying.
This is the core contradiction in Yunus’ model: a vision of democratic renewal achieved through top-down elite-led restructuring. It is a development practitioner’s dream – efficient, data-backed, expert-driven, but it bypasses democratic checks. It excludes the very electorate that will soon be asked to endorse the system.
This mindset explains why Yunus postponed elections from December 2025 to April 2026. Framing it as the “first real election in 17 years,” Yunus asserted that the vote must take place only after fundamental reforms are implemented. But this comes at the cost of shutting out the Awami League, the country’s largest party. Though technically not banned, their activities remain suspended. Yunus dismissed the party outright at Chatham House, questioning its status as a legitimate political force.
On the question of trials for disappearances and political violence during Hasina’s rule, Yunus justified immediate legal action, saying, “We didn’t decide, the people who invited us did.” The implication was that the interim government’s mandate includes justice – not merely oversight. Critics, however, see this as selective targeting that undermines claims of neutrality.
Economic Vision: Recovery, Reputation, and Remittances
Yunus’ remarks also touched extensively on economic policy. He accused previous governments of leaving Bangladesh in “negative levels,” citing $234 billion in lost assets and a collapsed banking system. He positioned his administration as one focused on recovery – fiscally and morally, and suggested that discussions with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer could include steps toward asset retrieval.
A notable point was his praise for the diaspora, whom he credited with rescuing the economy through massive remittances. Delivered in London, where over half a million Bangladeshis live, the message was unmistakably tailored. While avoiding hyperbole, Yunus implied that diaspora efforts were pivotal in stabilising the country’s economy, which is interesting – since a group of diaspora sat outside Chatham House as he spoke, revolting against his invitation there.
He positioned Bangladesh as an emerging manufacturing hub, leveraging its youthful population – over half under 26 and new labour migration deals such as one with Japan. His pitch to foreign investors was to not just sell in Bangladesh, but build in Bangladesh. He emphasised logistics infrastructure, particularly the Chittagong Port, aligning with his meeting with the head of the International Maritime Organisation.
On the IMF, Yunus expressed gratitude. While acknowledging its recommendation to increase tax collection, he framed the relationship as constructive and necessary. This tone stood in contrast to past Bangladeshi governments’ contentious dealings with international financial institutions.
Foreign Policy and Soft Edges
On foreign affairs, Yunus was tactful but clear. He reiterated a policy of “reaching out to everyone,” avoiding overt allegiance to either India or China. But when pressed about India’s decision to host Sheikh Hasina, he revealed his discomfort on Hasina issuing statements and messages for the Bangladeshi public from India – alleging that Prime Minister Modi privately acknowledged the issue but claimed it was a matter of ungovernable social media.
Interestingly, Yunus avoided any critical mention of China, despite its deep investments in Bangladesh’s ports and energy infrastructure. This calculated silence signals an attempt to maintain balance without antagonising powerful partners.
His strongest appeal came on the Rohingya crisis. With 1.2 million already in Bangladesh and 200,000 more anticipated, Yunus emphasised the need for international responsibility, particularly after USAID funding was withdrawn. He stated that Western nations had encouraged Bangladesh to shelter refugees but have since failed to support the effort. A major diplomatic push is planned for the UN General Assembly in September.
The Yunus Doctrine: Exit, but Not Quietly
Yunus maintains he has no political ambitions beyond the interim period. Asked directly if he intends to remain in power, he laughed off the suggestion. But his detailed “to-do” list reflects a man deeply invested in reshaping the country before his exit.
What emerges is a technocratic governance model: data-first, institutionally focused, and expert-driven. But it also appears insulated from grassroots participation. Yunus shrugged off concerns about police brutality and acknowledged local resentment against Rohingya refugees, without outlining concrete steps to address these challenges. On media freedom, he asserted journalists have “never had so much freedom in their life,” a claim contested by editors on the ground.
The broader critique is not about Yunus’ integrity – it’s about his framework. His interim government seems to want a democracy without friction, elections without established rivals, and reforms without dissent. For a man known globally for social entrepreneurship, the absence of participatory politics in his agenda stands out.
Yunus’ Chatham House speech offered a roadmap, but with no lanes. This leaves listeners with an open question: Is this a transitional administration, or the quiet construction of a new political order without old democratic rituals?
