Politics has its own inherent and fundamental dynamics. Its strength lies not merely in speeches, statements, promises, or aspirations to attain power; rather, its true foundation rests on building close relationships with the people, understanding their real-life problems, and playing an effective role in addressing them.
A political force that can earn public trust through meaningful engagement with the people, public welfare initiatives, and clearly defined programmes creates the conditions for gradually strengthening its political base.
When politics begins to devote most of its time and energy to criticising opponents, trading accusations, and engaging in internal disputes rather than pursuing public welfare programmes and constructive initiatives, its political effectiveness inevitably comes into question.
Criticism is a normal part of politics. Protesting irregularities, expressing differences over matters of principle, and scrutinising the positions of political opponents are also essential components of democratic politics.
However, when criticism becomes the dominant language of politics while visible efforts to promote public welfare remain weak, that politics risks failing to fulfil the expectations of ordinary people.
A review of the political activities of Islamic parties in Bangladesh in the present context brings this issue into particular focus.
In many instances, their mutual disagreements, leadership-centred disputes, organisational rivalries, and harsh criticism of one another—including acrimonious exchanges—are far more visible than coordinated, effective, and sustained initiatives to address the problems of everyday life. In many cases, the latter remain barely discernible. At times, the use of aggressive language and verbal attacks against one another also narrows the space for constructive political dialogue.
Of course, it would not be appropriate to make such a sweeping judgment about all Islamic parties or the totality of their activities. Different parties may undertake, or may already be undertaking, various initiatives in daʿwah (Islamic outreach), education, social service, and public welfare within their respective spheres and limited capacities.
The question, however, is this: To what extent are these initiatives organised, sustained, rooted in public engagement, and visible to the wider population? How closely do their political rhetoric and their actual programmes correspond?
The remarks made yesterday by the respected former Adviser for Religious Affairs, Professor Dr. A. F. M. Khalid Hossain, have brought these questions into renewed focus.
The significance of his remarks is not confined to the question of the prospects of attaining political power. They also create an opportunity for self-examination concerning the political capabilities, mutual relations, public engagement, and practical programmes of Islamic parties.
Aspiring to attain political power is not unusual for a political party. However, the legitimacy and practical feasibility of such an aspiration must be assessed in light of public support, organisational capacity, credible leadership, clearly defined policy positions, and an effective role in resolving people's problems.
This brings us to a fundamental question:
If Islamic parties are unable to make sufficient progress in building effective relationships with the wider population, working consistently to address people's everyday problems, and establishing at least a minimum level of coordination among themselves, how can these shortcomings be overcome merely through political rhetoric, mutual criticism, or expectations of attaining power?
Becoming excessively preoccupied with calculations about power without first establishing political and moral credibility among the people may only widen the gap between political aspirations and practical realities.
There is another important dimension to this issue.
When mutual disputes and criticism occupy a substantial portion of the political activities of Islamic parties, opportunities for joint initiatives in the public interest become increasingly restricted. In many cases, the effective presence of such initiatives is almost entirely absent.
If these parties consistently stood alongside the people with clear positions and practical programmes on crucial issues such as education, employment, the cost of living, corruption, social justice, good governance, civil rights, and public security, their role in politics could become far more meaningful.
Conversely, mutual distrust, fragmentation, and acrimonious exchanges may not only weaken their capacity for collective action but also limit their bargaining power within the broader political arena. Indeed, such divisions may expose them to the risk of becoming instruments through which other political forces advance their own interests.
Nevertheless, unity among Islamic parties does not mean achieving consensus on every issue or abandoning their distinctive ideologies and principled positions. Maintaining mutual respect despite differences, cooperating on matters of shared public interest, and behaving responsibly in resolving disagreements are hallmarks of political maturity.
Likewise, completely avoiding criticism of political opponents is neither necessary nor desirable. A more effective approach is to ground criticism in facts, reason, and principled positions while simultaneously presenting alternative programmes and demonstrating tangible contributions to society.
The most concerning issue is that when political forces make competition among themselves their overriding priority, the genuine needs and expectations of the people risk being pushed into the background.
This not only weakens the public support base of the parties concerned; their mutual divisions may also create opportunities for other actors with broader political interests to expand their influence.
Therefore, prioritising public engagement, mutual cooperation, and constructive political programmes is essential to the interests of the Islamic parties themselves.
In light of the former Adviser for Religious Affairs's remarks, several fundamental questions of self-examination should therefore be raised before Islamic parties:
Are they adopting adequate and effective programmes to address the real problems of the people?
Are their political activities moving towards earning public trust, or are they revolving endlessly within a cycle of mutual criticism?
Alongside their aspirations to attain political power, how much progress are they making in developing the public engagement, organisational capacity, and policy preparedness necessary to achieve that objective?
The credibility of Islamic politics does not depend solely on speaking in favour of Islam, inspiring people with a vision, making promises, or claiming to represent Islamic ideals. Rather, the validity of such claims must be demonstrated through justice, integrity, public service, responsibility, and an effective contribution to people's actual well-being.
Accordingly, moving beyond the cycle of politics dominated by mutual criticism and advancing towards greater public engagement, the implementation of public welfare programmes, a more constructive culture of principled debate, and cooperation on shared interests are now more important than ever.
The question, therefore, is not merely who will attain political power; it is also who is adequately prepared to earn the people's trust and play an effective role in promoting their welfare. No matter how loudly the aspiration to attain power is proclaimed, questions about its practical foundations will remain unless public support and tangible political action have first been firmly established.