Questiqa World
Assad fled Syria after rebel forces captured important cities, leading to the fall of his regime, which had been in power for decades against the backdrop of civil wars and international isolation. This followed the most serious anti-regime protests that Hasina faced, with demonstrated accomplishments by citizens of Bangladesh pointing to corruption and complete authoritarianism in her administration.
Assad’s regime was deeply entrenched in external dependencies. Backed by Russia and Iran, he withstood over a decade of civil war by leveraging foreign military aid. However, shifting alliances and waning support ultimately weakened his grip, leaving him vulnerable to internal resistance. In contrast, Hasina’s downfall stemmed from a confluence of internal crises. Economic mismanagement, suppression of opposition voices, and allegations of electoral malpractice fueled widespread anger, culminating in violent demonstrations that her administration could no longer control.
Both leaders relied on authoritarian tactics to maintain power, including suppressing dissent and consolidating institutional control. Assad’s regime was infamous for its brutal crackdowns, which decimated civilian areas during Syria’s civil war. Hasina mirrored this strategy through legal and political means, dismantling opposition parties and curtailing press freedoms. These actions fostered deep societal divisions, planting seeds of rebellion that eventually led to their dramatic exits.
The consequences of their departures show the inherent instability of authoritarian regimes. Assad leaves Syria torn apart, crushed economically, and filled with millions of displaced war victims. Uncertainties surrounding any transition plan reveal fears of chaos moving forward. Likewise, the departure of Hasina has cast Bangladesh into shadows of doubt as an interim government battles with increasingly tougher political and economic issues. Both nations have long-drawn battles at hand to earn back lost trust and develop institutions amidst their lingering divisions.
Although the crises had familiar themes, the triggers for their problem varied. The Assad regime faced internal warfare and external pressure; Hasina fell before increasingly feverish internal dissent. This contrast delineates how different internal versus external dynamics can destabilize long-entrenched regimes. However, in both cases, the absence of sustainable political solutions during the period of each leader has compounded the posthumous unrest in their respective nations.
Russia, which has invested heavily in Assad’s survival, will likely face a blow to its influence in the Middle East, complicating its regional strategy. For the United States, Assad’s departure may prompt a shift in its foreign policy, as the power vacuum could attract new actors, possibly heightening instability. Meanwhile, India stands to gain strategically, particularly in Bangladesh, where Hasina’s exit might open doors for stronger influence in trade, security, and regional politics as Bangladesh navigates a leadership transition.
Assad and Hasina exercised substantial control but were neglectful in adapting to changing political demands or addressing their populations’ grievances. The regimes’ unwillingness to promote governance inclusively directly led to their demise. If the end of the era of oppression in both cases will see trials ahead of Syria and Bangladesh, whether the nations can see themselves into stability and inclusivity are to be seen.
Their exits, while celebrated by many as victories for justice and democracy, leave their countries at critical crossroads. As Syria and Bangladesh navigate uncertain futures, the global community watches closely, mindful of the lessons these collapses impart about the cost of authoritarian governance and the challenges of rebuilding fractured societies.
Olivia
Kathy
Stacy
