WHENEVER a new US ambassador arrives in Dhaka, a familiar cycle begins. Optimism appears in some quarters. Suspicion hardens in others. Expectations, often exaggerated, are projected onto one individual. Yet ambassadors are never just individuals. They arrive carrying the weight of their country’s foreign policy, shaped by history, geopolitics and the local hopes and anxieties they did not create but must navigate.
Brent T Christensen’s arrival comes at one of Bangladesh’s most politically charged moments in years. The country is heading towards a national election that many at home and abroad see as far more than a routine contest. For many voters, and many observers, it is a test of political credibility, institutional trust and the direction democracy might take after a prolonged period of strain.
Soon after taking office, Christensen told journalists that the United States does not take sides in Bangladesh’s internal politics and that elections are the sovereign, constitutional right of the Bangladeshi people. On paper, this sounds like standard diplomatic language. In practice, in a deeply polarised political environment, restraint itself becomes meaningful. Sometimes what is not said carries as much weight as what is.
Diplomatic language is usually careful, sometimes deliberately vague. What stood out in Christensen’s early remarks was not flourish or moral lecturing, but clarity — quiet and deliberate. There were no threats, no instructions, no prescriptions. Still, there was a clear emphasis on process, legitimacy and outcome. This reflects a broader shift in how Washington communicates with countries navigating sensitive political transitions: less megaphone diplomacy, more calibrated signalling.
That tone matters because this election is unfolding against a backdrop that is anything but ordinary. Bangladesh’s political field has been reshaped in striking ways. The Awami League, which dominated politics for more than a decade, is effectively absent from formal electoral competition. The BNP, sidelined for years through legal and political pressure, has re-emerged as the principal electoral force. Islamist parties, long present but rarely central, are now more visibly attempting to expand their political footprint.
These changes have attracted international attention. Reporting from The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Guardian increasingly treats Bangladesh not as a routine election story, but as a case study: what happens when electoral politics reopen after prolonged one-party dominance and whether political competition can regain credibility without tipping into instability or exclusion.
During his US Senate confirmation hearing, Christensen described Bangladesh as approaching ‘one of the most consequential elections in decades.’ This was neither a warning nor a prescription. It was an acknowledgment of reality. The stakes go well beyond who forms the next government. They touch on whether political competition can feel genuine again, whether institutions can regain public trust and whether winner-takes-all instincts can be restrained in a deeply divided society.
Christensen is not new to Bangladesh. He has worked here before and understands the country’s political culture, its sensitivities and its contradictions. That familiarity shows. There is little ideological posturing, but also little ambiguity about expectations. It is realism rather than idealism; a diplomatic style increasingly applied to strategically important but politically fragile states.
The same realism is evident in Washington’s view of geopolitics. Christensen has made clear that the US is watching China’s expanding footprint in Bangladesh, not through an ideological lens but as a strategic reality. This is not about forcing Bangladesh to ‘choose sides.’ It is about how infrastructure projects, defence cooperation and economic dependencies shape long-term sovereignty and decision-making space.
For most Bangladeshis, these calculations feel distant. Daily life is measured in rising prices, job uncertainty and household pressures — not in debates over great-power rivalry. Yet the connection is real. Decisions about ports, energy, defence partnerships and digital infrastructure eventually affect economic autonomy, security choices and political leverage.
Bangladesh has long balanced relationships with major powers. But today’s global environment is less forgiving. Strategic neutrality now requires active choices, not quiet non-alignment. In this context, elections matter even more. A government born of a credible, participatory process is far better placed to manage external pressures than one whose legitimacy is contested.
This is where diplomacy intersects with Bangladesh’s own responsibilities. International actors can observe, encourage and signal support. They cannot substitute for domestic political will. The credibility of the upcoming election will depend less on foreign statements and more on whether political competition is allowed to function without intimidation, whether voters believe their choices genuinely matter and whether post-election governance moves away from winner-takes-all politics.
A recent International Crisis Group report underscores this tension. While noting that the interim government has stabilised parts of the system after last year’s upheaval, it also warns of deep vulnerabilities. Political mistrust persists, security reform remains incomplete and the space for opposition — though reopened — remains fragile. The report argues that only a credible election can restore legitimacy eroded over successive electoral cycles.
Seen this way, Christensen’s arrival is less about influence than about reading the room. His early messages suggest an understanding that Bangladesh’s future stability will depend not on external endorsement, but on internal legitimacy.
As election day approaches, diplomacy will increasingly be about tone rather than pressure, about signals rather than pronouncements. The new US ambassador’s words remind us of a simple but often overlooked truth: diplomacy today is not just the language of politeness. It is also the language of clarity — spoken softly but heard closely.
For Bangladesh, standing at a political crossroads, that clarity may matter more than ever.
Zillur Rahman is a political analyst and president of the Centre for Governance Studies (CGS). He is the host of Tritiyo Matra on Channel i. His X handle is @zillur.
