It is February 2007. Only a few months ago, in December 2006, Muhammad Yunus earned the unique distinction of being the first ever Bangladeshi to win the Nobel Peace Prize for his pioneering work on micro-credit to the poor as a primary vehicle for lifting millions out of poverty. The institution that he led – Grameen Bank – shared the Nobel Prize.
Fresh from his global triumph, Yunus set his sights on the Bangladesh political landscape. Much to the surprise of mainstream politicians and the general populace at large, Yunus publicly launched a new political party Nagorik Shakti (Citizen’s Force) on 18 February 2007, which, he proclaimed, would contest in 300 constituencies whenever an election was announced. Thus, Yunus, ‘the banker to the poor’ emerged as a politician who embraced secularism and progressive, pro-poor politics and sought to lead the country into a new direction. Bangladesh, he felt, was in the grip of capricious, highly partisan, and short-sighted career politicians who were represented by the two biggest parties in the country: Bangladesh National Party (BNP) and Awami League (AL). Yunus declared:
“There is no way I can stay away from politics any longer. I am determined…and it does not matter who says what about me,”
Unfortunately, the determination and enthusiasm associated with a new political party did not last long. Yunus withdrew from this new venture because it did not garner enough support. Nagorik Shakti was abruptly disbanded on 3 March 2007, that is, roughly two weeks after it was created. He ruefully acknowledged:
“I have decided to back out from my efforts for forming a political party, bowing to the practical aspects of the situation.”
Yunus, the failed politician of 2007, did not anticipate that further trouble was brewing that would affect his global image. Unknown to him, Tom Heinemann, an award-winning Danish investigative journalist, started his intrepid field work on microcredit schemes in 2007 across three countries, Bangladesh, India and Mexico. This laid the foundation for an explosive 2010 documentary in which Heinemann argued that micro-credit, far from being an instrument for lifting people out of poverty, mired the poor and vulnerable in unsustainable ‘micro debt’. A new documentary by DW (2025) substantiates the findings of Heinemann. Subsequent professional evaluations have found that the impact of micro-credit schemes on poverty ranged from ‘zero’ (Roodman, 2012) to ‘weak’ (Churchill, 2020).
Tom Heinemann
Heinmann also made the sensational claim that Yunus engaged in financial malfeasance. This allegation was not proven in an investigation by the Norwegian government which exonerated him from any financial and unethical wrongdoing.
Unfortunately, the Heinemann documentary added grist to the mill of then Hasina regime that was bent on a sustained campaign of persecution against Yunus. He lost his custodianship of Grameen Bank and became embroiled in all kinds of legal cases. Was Yunus being punished by a ruthless government for daring to challenge the political status quo as he briefly did in 2007? Probably.
Yunus managed to activate his formidable PR and political skills to portray himself as a noble victim of an authoritarian government and elicit both global and national sympathy for his predicament. At that point, one doubts whether he even imagined that he would be able to re-emerge as a politician and be at the helm of national affairs. This is what happened in August 2024. The long reign of the AL led by Hasina came to an abrupt and ignoble end as self-appointed student leaders, supported by the masses, unleashed a bloody and violent uprising and forced Hasina to seek refuge in neighbouring India.
After the failure of 2007, Yunus made a triumphant return to national politics, while his arch-nemesis Hasina languished in India. Under the recommendation of the student leaders, Yunus was appointed Chief Adviser to an Interim Government supported by an Advisory Council.
Has Yunus learnt the lessons of his 2007 short-lived experiment to engage in politics? In some respects, yes. There is indeed a new political party called Jatiya Nagorik Party (National Citizens Party -NCP). The similarity of this label to Nagorik Shakti can be readily detected. The key difference is that it is being run by student leaders of the anti-Hasina movement. So, in formal terms, there is a discreet distance between NCP and Yunus, but there is a widely understood notion that the NCP has the blessings of the interim government. Yunus appears to have the best of both worlds. He will not be held responsible if NCP fails to sustain itself electorally. If NCP emerges as a major electoral force, then Yunus has a lot to gain. He will indeed reign supreme and succeed in his long-standing quest to break the political status quo in Bangladesh.
Yet, the future for Yunus is not so clear. In seeking political redemption and retribution, the noble laureate has experienced several setbacks – such as the rise of Islamic radicalism, diluting the integrity of the judicial process, failure to improve the law and order situation, being evasive about holding elections, unable to engage in policies that can revive economic growth, reduce poverty and create jobs. While Yunus has actively courted one influential constituency —the self-appointed student leaders and Islamist parties —he has found himself at odds with the BNP. Bangladesh’s largest political party has insisted that an unelected, interim government must be quickly replaced by an elected parliamentary government by December of this year. The powerful Bangladesh Army has lent support to the BNP’s stand.
How does Yunus, the politician, respond under such challenging circumstances? Even a global icon like Yunus has limits to his authority and influence if he lacks electoral legitimacy. A sustainable pathway to power does not lie in prolonging the life of an unelected interim government or in offering preferential treatment to an upstart political party like NCP. Perhaps he should pay heed to the sagacious advice of one of his well-wishers:
” Yunus is 84 years old. His best bet to protect his legacy is to avail a safe exit by holding a free and fair election and facilitating a peaceful transition to a democratically elected political government, which would have more legitimacy than his interim administration and be in a better position to move the country forward.”
Reflections on development and governance 