Germany had a Jürgen Habermas, who died on March 14, 2026. He was not just a philosopher writing for academics; he was a public intellectual, someone who used ideas to help society understand itself, confront its own mistakes, and imagine a better future. He believed a country cannot move forward unless its people openly discuss the past, debate their values, and reason together. Habermas helped Germany face the horrors of Nazism and the Holocaust. He argued that societies must address historical atrocities not only with laws or politics but also through open, honest conversations among citizens. He emphasised the importance of a public sphere—an independent space where people could debate freely and influence decisions. Democracy, he believed, thrives when citizens can deliberate collectively about what is just, ethical, and fair.
Habermas also developed the idea of communicative rationality, which means that understanding comes not from authority or propaganda, but from dialogue aimed at mutual comprehension. Through discussion, societies can confront moral failures, challenge dominant narratives, and make reasoned collective judgements. Habermas did not confine himself to abstract philosophy. His writing, including The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, examined how public debate could shape politics and hold authority accountable. Beyond books, he wrote essays, gave interviews, and participated in public debates, engaging directly in discussions about Germany’s past, the Cold War, European integration, and global conflicts. By connecting theory to public life, he encouraged newspapers, educators, and civic institutions to foster spaces for discussion, gradually creating a culture where confronting history became a shared responsibility rather than a partisan or taboo topic.
Bangladesh, by contrast, has never had a figure like Habermas. From its beginning, the country needed someone who could combine intellectual insight with public engagement to help the nation make peace with its past. But no such figure emerged.
In 1971, Bangladesh gained independence after a brutal war that killed millions. Some groups, including Jamaat-e-Islami, collaborated with the Pakistani army in committing atrocities. Yet after independence, the nation did not engage in sustained public discussion to process these events. Unlike Germany, where intellectuals guided citizens in reflecting on Nazi crimes, Bangladesh largely avoided confronting the moral and structural questions of its own history. Today, some of the same political actors involved in the 1971 genocide receive a posthumous condolence motion in parliament, leaving ordinary citizens frustrated that the wounds of history have been sidelined.
Habermas would argue that this lack of public deliberation is the core problem. Without spaces for citizens to reason together, discuss past wrongs, or critically examine governance, society cannot form a shared understanding of its values or history. Memory becomes partisan, debates polarised, and historical wounds lie festering beneath the surface. Democracy remains like a half-built bridge spanning only part of the river, with legitimacy suspended over citizens’ reasoned judgement.
The need for a Habermas in Bangladesh is as urgent today as it was 55 years ago. Recent crises, especially the government-led brutalities during the 2024 July uprising and the 15 years of Awami League rule preceding it, have left behind deep political and social fractures. Efforts to reshape narratives or rehabilitate despised outfits through some “refined” actors are neither enough nor effective. What is needed are spaces where citizens can reason together, debate openly, and reflect on mistakes, accountability, and ethics. Symbolic gestures, slogans, or partisan narratives cannot replace this kind of public discussion.
South Africa engaged in debates about apartheid even as Archbishop Desmond Tutu led the formal Truth and Reconciliation Commission. In Argentina, intellectuals guided discussions about the “Dirty War” and its moral consequences. Rwanda, after the 1994 genocide, demonstrates the power of collective deliberation as community-based Gacaca courts let ordinary citizens testify, discuss, and reckon with atrocities under the guidance of local leaders, journalists, and civic intellectuals. In each case, progress depended not only on formal tribunals but on reasoned public discussion that helped societies confront structural failures and restore moral balance.
Bangladesh, while home to a sea of intellectuals, policy analysts, commentators, subject-matter experts, and so-called senior journalists, has rarely fostered spaces for the kind of inclusive public discussion Habermas envisioned. Even in the post-2024 context, debates remain polarised, performative, or politically controlled. Possibilities of victims-led truth commissions—bodies that investigate past injustices, document experiences, and promote accountability while fostering dialogue and healing—fell through. There is also no genuine public sphere where citizens can collectively reflect on history or evaluate contemporary politics critically. Without it, unresolved history and political tensions persist, leaving society like a ship adrift in turbulent waters, vulnerable to repeating past mistakes.
For Habermas, reflecting on history was more than just about assigning blame. It was about understanding systemic causes, recognising ethical failures, and learning lessons to prevent repetition. In Bangladesh, citizens feel injustice deeply, yet few forums allow them to examine why events happened, which structural problems persist, or what lessons can be learned. Indeed, why did certain political forces dominate for decades? Why were the atrocities of 1971 left unaddressed? How can citizens reason together about accountability today? These are precisely the conversations Habermas would urge, grounded in reason, ethics, and inclusivity.
Today, Bangladesh desperately needs a Habermas—not to dictate what people should think, but to cultivate a culture of engaging in public reasoning, discussion, and reflection. This should not mean the emergence of a single individual of Habermas’ stature. What Bangladesh needs, in a very practical sense, is a collective force: a network of civic institutions, independent media forums, grassroots dialogue initiatives, and civic education programmes that nurture deliberation. Independent media can host reasoned debates free from political control, civic education can teach young citizens critical reflection and ethical responsibility, and community dialogue initiatives can give victims and marginalised voices a meaningful role in engaging with history and governance. In short, if Bangladesh truly wants to strengthen its democracy, it had better learn to listen to itself.
Jannatul Naym Pieal is a Dhaka-based writer, researcher, and journalist. He can be reached at [email protected].
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
