Following the collapse of Sheikh Hasina’s 15-year rule in Bangladesh amid an uprising in August 2024, notable changes have emerged in the country’s civil-military relations. Mubashar Hasan, an academic returning to Dhaka after more than six years in exile, observed a marked reduction in fear surrounding the military’s intelligence agency, the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI). Criticism of the agency is now publicly aired on mainstream media without apparent retribution, signaling a shift in the military's traditional dominance over political discourse.

An interim administration has taken significant steps toward accountability, including bringing serving military officers before civilian courts on charges of "crimes against humanity," despite resistance from the army. Authorities have issued arrest warrants for five former DGFI chiefs, underscoring the effort to confront past abuses.

After the Bangladesh National Party’s (BNP) return to power in February 2026, the government acted swiftly, detaining military figures associated with a 2007 "soft coup" and, in July, charging six officers in connection to the enforced disappearance and murder of a local politician. However, experts contend that achieving lasting civilian supremacy will require dismantling the military’s entrenched role in Bangladesh’s economy and political landscape, beyond high-profile prosecutions.

The Bangladesh Army faces widespread public disapproval, having alienated multiple segments of society. Human rights organizations have condemned its conduct, while right-wing commentators criticize its perceived alignment with India. At the same time, secular groups remain uneasy with the military’s adoption of Islamic iconography, contributing to its diminished legitimacy.

Since the end of direct military governance in 1990, the army’s role has gradually evolved. Western pressures post-Cold War and lucrative UN peacekeeping missions initially kept the generals at bay politically. The military positioned itself as a neutral arbitrator between the two dominant political parties—the Awami League and the BNP. Yet the fragile position eroded during the 2007 coup, when the military detained and reportedly tortured leading politicians, including Tarique Rahman, now the BNP leader and prime minister. After the regime transition in 2008, the military's relationship with civilian government further transformed.

In 2009, a violent mutiny resulted in the deaths of 57 officers. Prime Minister Hasina blocked retaliatory actions by the army, leading to purges of dissenting officers. The military’s leadership then deepened cooperation with the government, with uniformed personnel deployed within the Rapid Action Battalion, an elite unit accused of numerous extrajudicial killings. Throughout the disputed elections of 2014 and 2018, the army's role shifted from impartial arbiter to political participant, with reports of enforced disappearances involving politicians, journalists, and academics.

Economic influence has become a critical facet of the military’s power. Under Hasina’s tenure, defense spending doubled, and the armed forces secured approximately $6 billion in construction contracts. Military-run welfare trusts operate roughly 300 educational institutions and have expanded into sectors including real estate, banking, manufacturing, and tourism. The army also competes with civilian authorities to control lucrative entities such as telecom regulation and port management. Such economic entrenchment parallels patterns seen in countries like Pakistan and Egypt, where military ownership in business hinders transparent governance and stifles private enterprise.

The commodification of military ties to political leadership has also undermined discipline within the ranks, with disaffected officers publicly criticising their commanders on social media—breaking long-standing taboos against internal dissent.

Moving forward, analysts stress that the sustainability of Bangladesh’s democracy will depend heavily on whether the military is willing to disengage from both political interference and economic monopolies. Retaining control over extensive assets could perpetuate the military’s leverage over civilian governments, complicating efforts to establish fully civilian-led governance.