On the night of August 4, 2024, Bangladesh’s army chief held an emergency video conference with his generals. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina had ordered troops to enforce a curfew and suppress the massive protests engulfing Dhaka. The generals made their decision: they would not fire on civilians. Hours later, General Waker-Uz-Zaman delivered the message to Hasina’s office. The army would not implement her lockdown. She had lost their support. By the next afternoon, Hasina was on a helicopter to India, her 15-year rule over. 

The fall of Sheikh Hasina has been celebrated as a victory for people power. Students who began protesting in June over government job quotas mobilized millions and forced out an entrenched autocrat. But the decisive blow came not from the streets — it came from the barracks. Bangladesh’s uprising succeeded because the military defected, validating what scholars Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan found in their landmark study: security force defections make non-violent campaigns 46 times more likely to succeed. Civil resistance created conditions for collapse. But military defection delivered it. 

Fifteen Years of Stealth Authoritarianism 

Hasina did not rule through dramatic coups or blatant vote-rigging. She exemplified what legal scholar Ozan Varol calls stealth authoritarianism — using legal mechanisms to hollow out democracy from within. Between 2014 and 2024, she won three consecutive elections. None were competitive. The 2024 election was boycotted by her main rivals after thousands of opposition members were arrested. Courts she had packed with loyalists legitimized her grip on power. Media outlets critical of the government were seized or silenced.

Her control extended deep into civil society through clientelism. The Awami League and its student wing, Bangladesh Chatra League (BCL), operated as enforcers. Bureaucrats, professors, judges — advancement required party loyalty. When protests erupted in July 2024, the BCL was deployed to attack demonstrators on university campuses, backed by the police. Hasina has spent 15 years systematically eroding horizontal accountability — the checks that legislatures, courts, and civil society place on executive power. By 2024, those guardrails had nearly disappeared. 

The Spark: Job Quotas and State Violence

The trigger was seemingly minor. In June 2024, Bangladesh’s High Court reinstated a quota system reserving 30% of government jobs for descendants of 1971 war veterans. In a country where 18 million young people are unemployed, students saw the quota as rigged patronage favoring Awami League families. Protests began peacefully. 

Then came the violence. Rather than negotiate, Hasina’s government unleashed police, paramilitary forces, and the BCL. Between July 15 and August 5, up to 1,400 people were killed, most shot by security forces. The government shut down the internet for 11 days, imposed a nationwide curfew, and gave police shoot-on-sight orders. Bangladesh Television was burned. Metro stations were torched. The state responded with overwhelming force. 

But repression backfired. In On Democratic Backsliding, Nancy Bermeo warns that violent crackdowns can galvanize opposition rather than crush it. Bangladesh proved her right. What began as a quota reform movement transformed into a mass uprising demanding Hasina’s resignation. By early August, the protesters’ slogan was clear: “She must resign and face trial.” University professors joined. Doctors and lawyers walked off jobs. Even Hasina’s own IT advisor later admitted the government’s stance was wrong. 

The Night the Army Walked Away

On August 4, nearly 100 people were killed in clashes — the deadliest day yet. Millions prepared to march on Dhaka. Hasina ordered a full lockdown. That night, General Waker-Uz-Zaman convened an emergency online meeting with top military brass. The question was simple: would the army open fire on civilians to save Hasina? The answer was no.

Why did the army defect? Three factors converged. First, the protests were massive and cross-sectional. Students led, but they were joined by workers, professionals, and ordinary citizens from all walks of life. This diversity made it harder for the military to justify a crackdown as suppressing “radicals” or “terrorists” — Hasina’s framing. Second, the death toll had become untenable. As one retired brigadier told Reuters, “There was a lot of uneasiness within the troops.” Soldiers were being asked to kill unarmed civilians en masse. Third, international pressure was mounting. The UN had objected to Bangladesh using UN-marked vehicles against protesters, threatening the military’s lucrative peacekeeping contracts. 

Waker-Uz-Zaman delivered the message to Hasina: his troops would not enforce the curfew. She had lost the military’s backing. Hours later, after consulting with her sister, Hasina fled to India on a military helicopter. By afternoon, jubilant crowds were storming her residence, toppling statues of her father, and celebrating in the streets. 

Why Defection Was Decisive

Civil resistance scholars have long known that military defection is the linchpin of regime change. Chenoweth and Stephan analyzed 323 resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006 and found that non-violent campaigns with security force defections were 46 times more likely to succeed than those without. Why? Because non-violent resistance creates a moral dilemma for soldiers. It’s harder to justify shooting unarmed students than armed insurgents. When troops refuse orders, regimes lose their primary tool of repression. 

Bangladesh fits this pattern perfectly. The protests mobilized millions, but Hasina still controlled the police, the courts, and state media. What she couldn’t control was the army’s willingness to kill. When that evaporated, so did her regime. This wasn’t a coup — the military didn’t seize power. It simply withdrew support, creating the space for regime collapse. General Waker-Uz-Zaman announced Hasina’s resignation and immediately promised an interim government. The message that protesters won’t tolerate any form of dictatorship was clear. 

What Bangladesh Teaches Us

Bangladesh offers three lessons about how democracies erode — and how they can be rescued. First, backsliding happens legally. Hasina didn’t storm parliament; she packed courts, manipulated elections, and captured institutions through patronage. Stealth authoritarianism is harder to resist because it masquerades as legality. 

Second, civil resistance works — but rarely alone. Protests created the pressure. They mobilized diverse sectors of society, exhausted the regime’s legitimacy, and made repression morally indefensible. But success required the military’s refusal to be complicit in mass violence. Movements must target not just the regime, but the pillars that support it.

Third, the hard work begins after the dictator flees. An interim government led by Muhammad Yunus now faces the challenge of rebuilding institutions Hasina captured. Elections are planned for 2026. But with the judiciary packed, the civil service politicized, and deep polarization, Bangladesh’s democratic restoration remains fragile. As scholars warn, reversing erosion is often harder than causing it.

On August 5, students proved that even entrenched autocrats can fall when people refuse to cooperate. But they also proved something else: regime change requires more than street protests. It requires the regime’s own enforcers to walk away. When Bangladesh’s generals said no, Hasina’s rule ended — not with a bang, but with the sound of a helicopter taking her to exile.

Works Cited

Al Jazeera. “Bangladesh army announces interim government after PM Sheikh Hasina flees.” Al Jazeera, 06 August 2024, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/5/bangladesh-pm-hasina-quits-and-flees-as-protestors-storm-palace-reports. Accessed 20 November 2025.

Al Jazeera. “Students renew Bangladesh protests, call for PM Hasina’s resignation.” Al Jazeera, 3 August 2024, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/3/students-renew-bangladesh-protests-call-for-nationwide-civil-disobedience. Accessed 21 November 2025.

Amnesty International. “Bangladesh: Justice for victims of 2024 massacre not served by death sentence against Sheikh Hasina.” Amnesty International, 17 November 2025, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/11/bangladesh-justice-for-victims-of-2024-massacre-not-served-by-death-sentence-against-sheikh-hasina/. Accessed 21 November 2025.

Bermeo, Nancy. “On Democratic Backsliding.” Journal of Democracy, vol. 21, no. 1, 2016, pp. 5-19. Project MUSE, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/607612.

Campbell, Charlie. “Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Resigns Under Pressure From Military and Mass Uprising.” TIME, 05 August 2024, https://time.com/7007790/bangladesh-prime-minister-sheikh-hasina-resigns-military-mass-protests-explainer/. Accessed 21 November 2025.

Chopra, Ritika. “Bangladesh unrest: Govt should have spoken out against quota earlier, met protesters, says Hasina son.” The Indian Express, 14 August 2024, https://indianexpress.com/article/india/bangladesh-unrest-govt-should-have-spoken-out-against-quota-met-protesters-says-hasina-son-9512741/. Accessed 20 November 2025.

Chughtai, Alia, and Marium Ali. “How Bangladesh’s ‘Gen Z’ protests brought down PM Sheikh Hasina.” Al Jazeera, 7 August 2024, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2024/8/7/how-bangladeshs-gen-z-protests-brought-down-pm-sheikh-hasina. Accessed 21 November 2025.

European Union Agency for Asylum. “Bangladesh: Situation update one year after the students’ protests.” 05 August 2025, https://euaa.europa.eu/news-events/bangladesh-situation-update-one-year-after-students-protests. Accessed 20 November 2025.

France 24. “Burned TV station showcases anger at Bangladesh PM.” France 24, 24 July 2024, https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240724-burned-tv-station-showcases-anger-at-bangladesh-pm. Accessed 20 November 2025.

Freedom House. “Bangladesh: Freedom in the World 2025 Country Report.” Freedom House, 2025, https://freedomhouse.org/country/bangladesh/freedom-world/2025. Accessed 21 November 2025.

The Guardian. “Bangladesh’s top court cuts job quotas that led to deadly student-led protests.” The Guardian, 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/21/bangladesh-court-scraps-job-quotas-student-led-protests. Accessed 20 November 2025.

Hasnat, Saif, and Mujib Mashal. “Bangladesh’s Leader Resigns and Flees Country After Protests (Published 2024).” The New York Times, 5 August 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/08/05/world/bangladesh-protests. Accessed 21 November 2025.

Paul, Ruma, et al. “Bangladesh says it forgot to remove UN logos from vehicles as it contained unrest.” Reuters, 25 July 2024, https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/bangladesh-says-it-forgot-remove-un-logos-vehicles-it-contained-unrest-2024-07-25/. Accessed 21 November 2025.

Rashid, Harun. “The Student-led Movement and the Downfall of the Bangladesh Government.” Australian Institute of International Affairs, 18 September 2024, https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/the-student-led-movement-and-the-downfall-of-the-bangladesh-government/. Accessed 20 November 2025.

Reuters. “Bangladesh sentences Sheikh Hasina to death over students crackdown.” NBC News, 17 November 2025, https://www.nbcnews.com/world/asia/bangladesh-sentences-sheikh-hasina-death-students-crackdown-rcna244320. Accessed 21 November 2025.

Reuters. “Exclusive — Bangladesh army refused to suppress protest, sealing Hasina’s fate.” VOA, 07 August 2024, https://www.voanews.com/a/exclusive-bangladesh-army-refused-to-suppress-protest-sealing-hasina-s-fate/7733166.html. Accessed 20 November 2025.

Riaz, Ali. “What Bangladesh’s widely boycotted election reveals about its future.” Atlantic Council, 18 January 2024, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/what-bangladeshs-widely-boycotted-election-reveals-about-its-future/. Accessed 20 November 2025.

Stephan, Maria J., and Erica Chenoweth. “Why Civil Resistance Works.” Belfer Center, 2008, https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/pantheon_files/files/publication/IS3301_pp007-044_Stephan_Chenoweth.pdf. Accessed 21 November 2025.

Varol, Ozan O. “Stealth Authoritarianism.” IOWA LAW REVIEW, vol. 100, https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/sites/ilr.law.uiowa.edu/files/2023-02/ILR-100-4-Varol.pdf.