The public sphere is more than streets, parks, or university halls — it is the stage upon which democracy’s vitality is displayed. Jürgen Habermas’s seminal concept of the public sphere frames it as an autonomous domain where citizens engage in rational-critical debate, forming public opinion independent of both state coercion and market manipulation. In Habermas’s vision, democracy’s legitimacy rests on the “unforced force of the better argument,” where truth emerges not from power but from reasoned deliberation. The public sphere is not merely a forum for expression — it is the moral and intellectual foundation of democratic life, a site where citizens collectively negotiate the common good.
Yet this ideal has been continuously contested. Nancy Fraser critiques Habermas’s model for its historical exclusions, arguing that women, workers, and marginalized groups were largely denied access, giving rise to subaltern counterpublics that challenge dominant narratives. These counterpublics remind us that democracy is never fully realized in a single, unified sphere; it is always plural, fragmented, and contested. Later theorists such as Henri Lefebvre, David Harvey, and Edward Soja extend this critique by emphasizing that the public sphere is not purely discursive—it is also spatial and material. If Fraser exposes who is excluded, Lefebvre and Harvey remind us where exclusion occurs: in urban form, institutional space, and the lived geographies of power.
In this light, Bill Readings’s notion of eripheral singularities — the localized sites of meaning that resist totalization — aptly captures the fractured condition of modern publics. The collapse of a shared cultural or national center produces multiple, decentered nodes of discourse that circulate meaning without coherence. Applied to the public sphere, this suggests a democratic condition where energy abounds but coordination falters — a field of voices without a chorus. The public sphere, therefore, is not neutral; it is a dynamic and uneven terrain where inclusion and exclusion, democracy and domination, are continuously negotiated.
Bangladesh provides a stark illustration. Over the past decade, particularly under Sheikh Hasina’s increasingly autocratic rule, the public sphere had been colonized by bureaucratic control, commercial interests, and partisan cacophony. Streets, universities, and media — vital components of the public sphere — were subsumed under political and economic imperatives. Citizens navigated as subjects under surveillance rather than as equal participants in a communicative community. Fear, censorship, and clientelism hollowed out spaces that once embodied civic imagination.
Historically, Bangladesh’s public sphere was vibrant and insurgent. From the Language Movement of 1952 to the anti-Ershad protests of the 1980s, it functioned as a laboratory of political imagination and civic courage. Citizens marched, students debated, and ideas flowed freely in parks, streets, and lecture halls. Lefebvre would describe these as socially produced arenas of interaction, where meaning and power were continuously negotiated. Today, much of that vitality has been suppressed. Streets once alive with slogans, chants, and political theatre now echo with caution and uncertainty. Universities, once crucibles of dissent, have been depoliticized through administrative overreach, partisan appointments, and rigid surveillance. Harvey’s critique of the neoliberal city resonates here: both urban and intellectual dimensions of the public sphere have been commodified, securitized, and policed, reflecting broader conflicts of class, power, and control.
The July 2024 uprising momentarily ruptured this closure, exposing both the resilience and fragility of Bangladesh’s civic imagination. Gen Z, harnessing digital tools and moral energy, reclaimed the public sphere — both physical and virtual — creating a hybrid arena of expression reminiscent of Soja’s Thirdspace. Digital media and streets converged as students, young workers, and first-time voters transformed discontent into a collective voice demanding accountability. For a brief moment, Habermas’s ideal of rational-critical discourse seemed within reach.
Yet the triumph was fragile. As Fraser cautions, counterpublics can be quickly neutralized if institutional structures remain intact. The Interim Government, despite its stated commitment to democratic restoration, has struggled to consolidate these gains. Bureaucratic inertia, elite manipulation, and systemic co-optation have absorbed much of the energy unleashed by the uprising. Paradoxically, the Interim Government — tasked with restoring democracy — has inherited the very instruments of surveillance and control that once undermined it. In Readings’s terms, the post-uprising civic field risks dissolving into peripheral singularities once more: multiple, impassioned, yet disconnected spheres of dissent that fail to articulate a transformative, national discourse.
The erosion of the public sphere is not only institutional but discursive. Mainstream media, often aligned with political or commercial interests, amplifies power rather than reason. Television talk shows and newspapers frequently privilege spectacle over substance, transforming citizens from participants in dialogue to the consumers of political theatre. Social media, initially hailed as a liberating platform, increasingly serves as a theater of division, distorted by algorithms, misinformation, and orchestrated vilification. Chomsky’s critique of “manufactured consent” remains instructives: what appears as public opinion is often mediated and manipulated, privileging spectacle over substance. Popularity substitutes for argument; hashtags replace deliberation; and viral outrage drowns out careful critique.
The exclusion of Gen Z from decision-making remains particularly stark. Having catalyzed the July 2024 movement, their radical hope has been domesticated into token gestures, their demand for reform reduced to bureaucratic promises. Habermas would recognize this as the system reasserting itself over the lifeworld — containing dissent within institutions rather than allowing it to reshape them. The moral and intellectual energy of the movement risks dissipating unless channels for participation are expanded and protected.
In a functioning democracy, the public sphere — both material and symbolic — acts as a pressure valve, allowing grievances to be aired, debated, and resolved. When such a sphere is constricted, dissent migrates underground and frustration turns volatile. Urban landscapes fenced by barricades, saturated with surveillance, or cordoned for political events reflect a deeper crisis of trust. Televised debates, orchestrated rallies, and press briefings perform democracy, but they cannot substitute for genuine civic engagement. Citizens increasingly consume spectacle rather than participate in dialogue, reducing debate to slogans and dissent to loyalty. The result is a profound crisis of communicative rationality.
Yet hope persists. Scattered movements — student collectives, citizen forums, and professional associations — continue to assert the right to question authority. These efforts echo Habermas’s insistence that democracy survives in everyday communicative practices: listening, reasoning, and contesting meaning. The challenge lies in institutionalizing this spirit, ensuring that these sparks of civic engagement do not fade. Democracy cannot be restored through electoral rituals alone; it requires rebuilding public trust, decolonizing civic discourse, and protecting dissent as a public good.
The Interim Government, in the run-up to a free and fair election when the political government takes over, must treat freedom of expression and academic autonomy as constitutional imperatives, not negotiable luxuries. Streets must again become the arenas of peaceful assembly, universities the laboratories of thought rather than the fortresses of ideology, and media the channels of deliberation rather than the megaphones of power. The public sphere must once more be where citizens encounter one another as equals, debate differences, and negotiate meaning—fulfilling the promise articulated by Habermas while heeding the critical insights of Fraser, Lefebvre, Harvey, Soja, and Readings.
The public sphere is democracy’s mirror. When citizens can speak without fear, when disagreement does not entail danger, and when power listens rather than dictates, the reflection clears. Until then, Bangladesh remains adrift — between the memory of courage and the mirage of control, and between the promise of a rational-critical public sphere and the reality of its colonization. To restore democracy, the nation must reclaim not only its ballots but its words — the language of dissent, reason, and hope.
Revitalizing democratic life begins with safeguarding academic autonomy. Universities must be freed from political surveillance and coercion so they can function as the laboratories of critical thinking rather than the instruments of partisan control. The media landscape demands similar repair: an independent regulatory council is needed to break concentrated ownership, enforce pluralism, and defend evidence-based journalism against disinformation and intimidation.
Gen Z’s political awakening must be institutionally anchored by creating formal channels for their participation in policymaking and local governance, converting episodic activism into a durable democratic practice. And no democracy survives without public space. Reopening streets, parks, and cultural venues for peaceful assembly and open dialogue is essential to reclaim the public sphere as a shared civic commons rather than a zone of fear and fragmentation.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Magazine and its editorial team. Views published are the sole responsibility of the author(s).
