By Aisha Sabah, WFY Bureau | World Politics | The WFY Magazine, February 2026 Edition
It first became noticeable in Dhaka through schedules rather than statements. Meetings that once took weeks to arrange were suddenly fixed within days. Names that had been avoided in diplomatic briefings were now discussed openly. By the end of 2025, it was no longer unusual to see senior business figures, foreign envoys, and political intermediaries acknowledging, sometimes reluctantly, that Shafiqur Rahman was someone they needed to speak to.
This was a quiet change, but a consequential one.
For decades, the leadership of Jamaat-e-Islami existed on the margins of formal power, kept there by law, history, and international discomfort. Engagement, when it happened, was indirect and deniable. That convention has begun to erode. Rahman, the party’s emir since 2019, now occupies a space that would have been unthinkable even two years ago. He is not merely tolerated. He is consulted.
The reasons for this shift lie less in Rahman’s personal transformation than in Bangladesh’s altered political landscape.
A country between structures
Bangladesh enters 2026 in a state of institutional fatigue. The political order that once revolved around a familiar rivalry no longer holds with the same force. The removal of Sheikh Hasina in mid-2024 did not create immediate clarity. Instead, it left behind a system struggling to find a new centre of gravity.
The Awami League’s dominance collapsed abruptly. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party remained standing, but no longer unchallenged. Smaller formations and student-led movements filled the streets but struggled to convert momentum into organisation. What followed was not chaos, but uncertainty.
In that uncertainty, Jamaat-e-Islami re-entered the conversation.
This re-entry did not come through dramatic mobilisation or confrontational rhetoric. It came through organisation. Jamaat’s local networks, long active but politically constrained, became more visible during periods of social stress. Flood response, welfare distribution, and neighbourhood-level assistance placed the party in spaces where the state appeared distant or slow.
For voters disillusioned with slogans, this mattered.
Rahman’s ascent within constraint
Shafiqur Rahman inherited leadership of Jamaat at one of its weakest moments. The party was banned. Its senior figures were under pressure. Its public image was brittle. Rahman himself faced arrest and prolonged detention, emerging into a political environment that offered little immediate opportunity.
Yet his leadership style was measured rather than defiant. He avoided theatrical opposition. He rarely escalated language. Instead, he focused inward, consolidating authority within the party and emphasising discipline and organisational coherence.
This internal consolidation is often overlooked, but it is central to understanding Jamaat’s current position. Rahman commands trust inside the party. That authority has allowed Jamaat to move cautiously but consistently, avoiding public splits that have weakened other political formations.
His background as a former government doctor also shapes his public manner. He speaks without flourish. He avoids provocation. His appearances are often subdued, sometimes visibly strained by health concerns. For supporters, this restraint reads as sincerity. For critics, it can appear evasive.
Either way, it has proven effective.
The manifesto as signal
When Jamaat unveiled its election manifesto in Dhaka in mid-2025, the reaction was mixed. The document promised ambitious economic transformation, including a dramatic expansion of gross domestic product over the coming decades. Economists questioned the feasibility of these targets. Analysts noted the lack of granular fiscal detail.
Yet the manifesto was not designed to settle accounts. It was designed to send a signal.
The signal was that Jamaat no longer wished to be seen as a party of protest or moral opposition. It wanted to be read as a governing organisation with national ambitions. The language emphasised development, investment, education, healthcare, and technological advancement. Religious framing was present, but no longer dominant.
This shift unsettled both supporters and critics. For Jamaat’s base, it raised questions about ideological dilution. For sceptics, it raised doubts about sincerity. For undecided voters, however, it suggested possibility.
In politics, possibility often matters more than certainty.
Why elites are recalculating
Business leaders are not sentimental actors. Their interest in Rahman reflects calculation, not conversion. As Jamaat’s polling numbers improved in several urban constituencies, ignoring its leadership became impractical.
The same logic applies to foreign missions. Bangladesh’s strategic relevance has increased, not diminished, in recent years. It remains central to regional stability, global manufacturing supply chains, and South Asian geopolitics. Any political force with a realistic path to influence demands engagement.
This engagement does not imply endorsement. It reflects contingency planning.
Rahman’s meetings with diplomats, including from Europe, India, and beyond, are best understood in this context. They are exploratory rather than declarative. They signal preparedness rather than approval. For Rahman, they offer legitimacy. For foreign actors, they reduce uncertainty.
The optics of these meetings, however, carry domestic consequences. They reinforce the perception that Jamaat has crossed a threshold from exclusion to relevance.
The youth factor
One of the more striking developments of the past year has been Jamaat’s appeal to younger voters. This appeal is often misunderstood.
It is not driven primarily by religious ideology. It is driven by exhaustion.
Young Bangladeshis who participated in the protests of 2024 were motivated less by doctrinal alignment than by frustration with corruption, stagnation, and political theatre. Many of them remain sceptical of all established parties. Yet scepticism does not preclude engagement.
Rahman’s tone, which avoids confrontation and speaks of service and accountability, resonates with a generation weary of spectacle. His willingness to address youth directly, without condescension, contrasts with the language used by some rival leaders.
This does not mean Jamaat has resolved its internal contradictions. It means that, for some voters, those contradictions are temporarily outweighed by the desire for order.
The unresolved past
No discussion of Jamaat can avoid 1971. The party’s role during Bangladesh’s war of independence remains a defining fault line. Rahman’s approach to this history has been cautious to the point of frustration for critics.
He has acknowledged past harm without detailing responsibility. He has spoken of mistakes without specifying actions. This ambiguity is deliberate. Explicit admissions risk destabilising his leadership within a party still shaped by ideological discipline.
Supporters argue that this is political realism. Critics see it as evasion. Both interpretations contain truth.
What is clear is that Rahman has shifted the tone from outright denial to guarded acknowledgment. This is a change, albeit a limited one. Whether it is sufficient for broader reconciliation remains uncertain.
Gender and the limits of reform
Jamaat’s efforts to present itself as moderate encounter their clearest limits on questions of gender. The party’s internal structure remains male-dominated. Its leadership positions are not open to women in practice, regardless of rhetorical inclusion.
This contradiction has become more visible as Jamaat courts a broader electorate. The prominence of women in recent protest movements has sharpened scrutiny of Jamaat’s positions. Attempts to project inclusivity sit uneasily alongside doctrinal constraints.
Rahman’s handling of these issues reflects the broader tension within his leadership. He seeks to expand Jamaat’s reach without provoking internal rupture. This often results in carefully calibrated messaging that satisfies neither side fully.
For now, the tension is managed. Whether it can be sustained under the pressures of governance is an open question.
Dual messaging and political risk
Jamaat’s current strategy involves speaking in different registers to different audiences. To international observers and urban professionals, it emphasises governance, accountability, and reform. To conservative supporters, it maintains religious identity and moral language.
This duality is not unique to Jamaat. Many political parties operate similarly. What makes Jamaat’s case distinctive is the historical weight of its ideology and the scrutiny it attracts.
As Jamaat’s visibility increases, inconsistencies become harder to contain. Statements that reassure one audience may unsettle another. The margin for error narrows.
Rahman’s authority within the party offers some insulation. Yet authority is not immunity.
What Rahman represents
It is tempting to frame Shafiqur Rahman as a transformative figure. That may overstate the case. He is better understood as a product of circumstance.
Bangladesh’s political vacuum created space. Institutional fatigue reduced resistance. Public frustration lowered thresholds. Rahman stepped into that space with caution rather than ambition, and that caution has become his strength.
Whether he becomes prime minister is less important than what his rise reveals. It reveals a society searching for alternatives without fully trusting any of them. It reveals the limits of exclusion as a political strategy. It reveals the costs of unresolved history.
For Jamaat, this moment is an opportunity. It is also a test.
An uncertain path forward
Elections rarely resolve deep contradictions. They expose them. If Jamaat enters government, it will face demands that rhetoric cannot satisfy. Economic promises will require execution. Ideological positions will face legal and social challenge. International engagement will bring scrutiny.
If Jamaat remains in opposition, its influence will persist, but its narrative of readiness may weaken. Either outcome carries risk.
Rahman’s personal stature within the party appears secure for now. His broader legacy remains undefined.
What is certain is that Bangladesh’s political conversation has shifted. Figures once considered beyond engagement are now unavoidable. Doors once closed remain open, at least for the moment.
Whether those doors lead to durable change or further disillusionment is a question Bangladesh will answer over time, unevenly, and without guarantees.
Disclaimer: This article is an independent editorial analysis based on publicly available information and evolving political developments. It does not represent endorsement of any political party or individual. Readers are encouraged to consult multiple sources and perspectives when engaging with complex political issues.