From the Streets to the State: How July’s Vision Narrowed

The true spirit of July has increasingly been reduced to a simple narrative of regime change, but replacing rulers is not the same as transforming politics. Beyond merely removing an authoritarian government, the democratic energy of the uprising challenged multiple forms of discrimination, including class hierarchy, gender exclusion, religious bias, and entrenched power, offering a fleeting glimpse of politics accountable to the marginalized.
However, this expansive horizon narrowed rapidly as the collective agency of the streets was displaced. The contradiction first appeared not in constitutional debates, but in how political authority was reproduced; while workers, students, women, and Indigenous peoples created the democratic force on the streets, behind-the-scenes negotiations increasingly focused on managing state power and reorganizing it within the existing order. This shift away from popular sovereignty became glaringly exposed after August 5, followed by institutional silence regarding violence and a growing reliance on online attacks and disinformation to delegitimize dissent.
This transformation became particularly visible in the treatment of women. Having occupied an unprecedented political position during the uprising by breaking hall gates and challenging authoritarian rule, women quickly became targets in the struggle over post-July politics. Despite documenting degrading online abuse and calling for preventive action, no effective anti-harassment mechanisms or institutional accountability followed, allowing misogyny to function as an instrument to discipline and restrict political participation while reducing inclusion to mere performance.
Furthermore, July’s pluralistic legacy, built on the convergence of diverse social groups, was increasingly narrowed by an exclusionary religio-nationalist vocabulary. Incidents such as attacks on Indigenous students and cultural institutions like Chhayanaut and the Bangladesh Udichi Shilpigosthi reflected an ongoing effort to shrink the democratic boundaries that the uprising had briefly expanded. Ultimately, while the movement survives as a symbol, its leadership failed to channel that extraordinary collective energy toward a genuinely non-discriminatory Bangladesh, leaving the uprising separated from the very people who made it possible.