Bangladesh’s Big Question: Will Khaleda Zia’s Son Build on Her Legacy?

Bangladesh’s political landscape has long been shaped by towering personalities, and few loom as large as Begum Khaleda Zia. A former prime minister and a central figure in the country’s two-party rivalry, Khaleda Zia’s legacy is inseparable from the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) she led for decades. Today, as age, health, and political circumstances limit her public role, a pivotal question has emerged: can her son, Tarique Rahman, carry that legacy forward—and adapt it to a changing Bangladesh?

This question is not merely about succession. It goes to the heart of how dynastic politics functions in South Asia, how opposition movements survive under pressure, and whether leadership inherited by name can be transformed into leadership earned by vision and performance.

A legacy heavy with history

Khaleda Zia’s political journey is rooted in both tragedy and resilience. Widowed after the assassination of President Ziaur Rahman, she rose to lead the BNP and served twice as prime minister. Her tenure was marked by intense rivalry with Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League, alternating periods of governance and opposition, and a political culture defined by confrontation as much as consensus.

Supporters credit Khaleda Zia with defending multiparty democracy and standing firm against one-party dominance. Critics point to governance challenges, allegations of corruption, and a confrontational style that deepened political polarization. Whatever the judgment, her impact on Bangladesh’s politics is undeniable—and inheriting such a legacy is as much a burden as it is a privilege.

Tarique Rahman: heir apparent or independent leader?

Tarique Rahman, Khaleda Zia’s elder son, has long been viewed as the BNP’s future. As senior vice chairman of the party, he effectively serves as its top leader in exile, guiding strategy and messaging from abroad. His supporters see him as a natural successor who understands the party’s grassroots and can energize younger voters. Detractors argue that his rise reflects dynastic entitlement rather than proven leadership.

For Tarique, the central challenge is credibility. Building on his mother’s legacy cannot simply mean preserving her political brand. It requires demonstrating strategic clarity, ethical leadership, and an ability to navigate Bangladesh’s evolving social and economic realities. The electorate today is younger, more urban, and more digitally connected than during Khaleda Zia’s prime. Appeals rooted solely in historical grievances may no longer suffice.

Reform versus remembrance

One of the defining tests for Tarique Rahman is whether he can balance continuity with reform. The BNP’s traditional base remains loyal to the Zia family, but loyalty alone does not guarantee electoral success. Calls for internal party democracy, clearer policy platforms, and a more inclusive leadership style have grown louder—especially among younger supporters.

If Tarique is to build on his mother’s legacy, he may need to reinterpret it. That could mean shifting the BNP’s focus from personality-driven politics to institution-building, from reactive street movements to proactive policy debates. Economic inequality, employment, climate vulnerability, and governance reforms dominate public concerns today. An opposition that speaks convincingly to these issues stands a better chance of regaining relevance.

The shadow of controversy

Another obstacle is the shadow of past controversies. Allegations and legal cases associated with Tarique Rahman have shaped public perception, both domestically and internationally. While his supporters argue these are politically motivated, perception matters in politics. Overcoming skepticism will require transparency, consistency, and a willingness to be judged on actions rather than lineage.

This is where comparison with Khaleda Zia becomes unavoidable. Her political authority was forged through years of visible struggle, electoral victories, and mass mobilization. Tarique’s leadership, by contrast, has largely been exercised from afar. Bridging that gap—between remote command and on-the-ground connection—may be essential if he hopes to be seen as more than a symbolic leader.

What it means for Bangladesh

The question of whether Khaleda Zia’s son can build on her legacy is ultimately about more than one family or one party. A credible, constructive opposition is vital to any democracy. If Tarique Rahman can modernize the BNP, articulate a clear alternative vision, and engage voters beyond traditional strongholds, he could play a significant role in reshaping Bangladesh’s political balance.

If he cannot, the risk is stagnation—both for the party and for the broader political system. Dynastic succession without renewal may deepen public cynicism and reinforce the sense that politics remains closed to new ideas and new leaders.

A legacy still being written

Khaleda Zia’s place in Bangladesh’s history is already secured. Her son’s place is not. Tarique Rahman stands at a crossroads where inheritance meets responsibility. Building on his mother’s legacy will require more than carrying her name; it will require redefining what that legacy means for a new generation. In answering that challenge, he may also help answer a bigger question about the future direction of Bangladeshi politics itself.