Farewell Khaleda Zia

 Farewell Khaleda Zia

The quiet architect of Bangladesh’s economic modernisation

When Khaleda Zia is remembered, she is most often seen as a resolute political leader—unyielding in temperament and unwavering in her opposition to authoritarian rule. From the anti-military movements to later struggles against creeping fascism, she emerged as a symbol of democratic resistance. Her composure, restraint, and sense of decorum set her apart, and the public—moved by her patriotism and nationalist vision—returned her to power with record electoral mandates.

Yet beyond her political battles lies another, less acknowledged legacy: Khaleda Zia was a central architect of Bangladesh’s long-term economic transformation. Under her leadership, the country moved steadily away from a hunger- and famine-stricken, agriculture-dependent economy toward one driven by exports, labour migration, and industrial growth. This transformation did not come through grand proclamations. It unfolded through quiet, incremental, and structural change—pursued without fanfare and without any demand for personal acclaim.

History is often unforgiving to leaders who do not trumpet their own achievements. In patriarchal political systems, that judgment is harsher still for women. Khaleda Zia was no exception. Yet beneath the turbulence of her political life lies perhaps her most enduring contribution: the patient and understated construction of Bangladesh’s economic modernisation.

Poverty reduction: Growth that reached the poorest

When Khaleda Zia first formed a government in 1991, Bangladesh was among the poorest countries in the world, with more than 56 per cent of its population living below the poverty line. By the end of her first term in 1996, that figure had fallen to 53.1 per cent, lifting an estimated 4–5 million people out of poverty within five years.

The pace accelerated during her second term from 2001 to 2006. In that period alone, another 12–13 million people escaped poverty. Across both tenures, the lives of roughly 16–18 million people were fundamentally transformed. While China’s poverty-reduction story is widely celebrated, Khaleda Zia’s comparable achievement remains largely unspoken.

This shift was not merely statistical. In a post-colonial society like Bangladesh, poverty reflects not only income deprivation but also the nature of the relationship between the state and its citizens. Under Khaleda Zia, that relationship changed. The state was no longer conceived as omnipresent and controlling; instead, it enabled people to work, access markets, and move freely.

Her approach was neither rigid central planning nor a textbook application of neo-liberal doctrine. It was a pragmatic political-economic strategy rooted in Bangladesh’s realities—one that recognised both the limits of the state and the immense potential of society once key constraints were lifted. As a result, economic growth during her tenure did not remain concentrated at the top. Investment and employment expanded in ways that allowed the poorest to share in development gains.

From jute nostalgia to an industrial economy

A strong export base is essential to economic modernisation. Khaleda Zia inherited an economy still haunted by the decline of the jute industry. During her leadership, the ready-made garment (RMG) sector gradually emerged as Bangladesh’s primary link to the global economy.

In her first term, RMG exports nearly tripled, with the sector’s share of total exports rising from 51 per cent to 65 per cent. During her second term, export growth continued, even as the global textile regime changed with the end of the Multi-Fiber Arrangement (MFA)—a moment many feared would cripple the industry. Instead, the sector survived and strengthened. By 2006, garments accounted for nearly 75 per cent of total exports, laying the groundwork for further industrial diversification.

Perhaps the most profound social impact of this transformation was the mass entry of women into the labour force. Millions of rural women earned formal-sector cash incomes for the first time, altering power relations within households, villages, and society at large. This was not the outcome of a narrowly defined women’s empowerment programme; it was the deep, organic result of structural economic change.

Another of Khaleda Zia’s least recognised yet most lasting contributions was the foundation of a migrant labour economy. In 1991, remittance inflows stood at just $764 million. By 1996, they had crossed $1.2 billion. Between 2001 and 2006, remittances surged to $4.8 billion—a nearly 150 per cent increase in just five years, driven by expanded labour migration to the Gulf and Southeast Asia.

Remittances: An invisible welfare state

Remittance income became an invisible welfare state for rural Bangladesh, financing consumption, housing, education, and small-scale investment. The foundations of today’s foreign currency reserves were laid during this period. Even in times of political failure and economic mismanagement, remittances continued to supply oxygen to the economy.

Structural change was visible in national accounts as well. In 1990–91, agriculture accounted for 30 per cent of GDP, while industry stood at 21 per cent. By 2006, industry’s share had risen to 27 per cent, surpassing agriculture, which had fallen to 20 per cent. For the first time in Bangladesh’s history, industry became the primary driver of growth.

This transformation did not come at the cost of food security. Dependence on food aid declined, rice production increased, and near self-sufficiency in grain was achieved—particularly through expanded Boro cultivation. Industrial growth and agricultural resilience advanced together, the result of careful and largely uncelebrated policy choices.

State, tragedy, and moral reckoning

Khaleda Zia governed at a time when memories of military rule were still fresh, democratic institutions were fragile, and international donors wielded immense influence. Pursuing development under such conditions was not merely an economic challenge; it was a political risk. She chose to expand human and economic agency, allowing people, labour, and capital to move with greater freedom rather than tightening state control.

Her death cannot be viewed solely as a matter of personal loss. It reverberates through the moral and political conscience of the state. A state that incarcerates its citizens, silences them, and slowly drives them toward death reveals a profound ethical failure. In this sense, Khaleda Zia’s passing is not only an individual tragedy but a tragedy of the state itself—one marked by years of authoritarian oppression inflicted upon her.

She did not yield to tyranny. In the face of repression, censorship, and violence, she stood as a symbol of resistance. Even when that resistance became quieter and more symbolic, it continued to inspire hope. That quiet defiance helped sow the seeds of the mass uprising of 2024. As Faiz Ahmed Faiz once wrote:

“I set out alone toward the destination;
One by one, others joined, and in the end, it became a procession.”

Khaleda Zia is not merely a figure of the past. She remains a lasting beacon—etched into Bangladesh’s collective memory and into the map of its future hope.