Authorities investigating killing of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, once seen as de-facto PM under father’s iron-fisted rule.

Thousands of people have attended the funeral of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s most prominent son, who was shot dead this week.

The burial took place on Friday in the town of Bani Walid, some 175 kilometres (110 miles) south of Tripoli.

Nearly 15 years after the elder Gaddafi was toppled and killed in a 2011 NATO-backed uprising, thousands of loyalists turned up to mourn his son, who was once seen as the former leader’s heir apparent.

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi was killed on Tuesday in his home in the northwestern city of Zintan. His office said in a statement that he had been killed during a “direct confrontation” with four unknown gunmen who broke into his home.

The office of Libya’s attorney general said investigators and forensic doctors examined the 53-year-old’s body and determined that he died from gunshot wounds and that the office was working to identify suspects.

“We are here to accompany our beloved one, the son of our leader in whom we placed our hope and our future,” said Waad Ibrahim, a 33-year-old woman from Sirte, nearly 300km (186 miles) away from Bani Walid.

Divided country

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi was once described as the de facto prime minister under his father’s iron-fisted 40-year rule, cultivating an image of moderation and reform despite holding no official position.

Championing himself as a reformer, he led talks on Libya abandoning its weapons of mass destruction and negotiated compensation for the families of those killed in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.

But that reputation soon collapsed when he promised “rivers of blood” in response to the 2011 uprising, which led to his arrest that year on a warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity.

In 2021, he announced he would run for president, but the elections aiming to unify the divided country under a United Nations agreement were indefinitely postponed.

Today, Libya remains split between Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah’s UN-backed government based in Tripoli and an eastern administration backed by Khalifa Haftar.

The killing of Gaddafi, seen by many as an alternative to the country’s power duopoly, occurred less than a week after a reported January 28 meeting in France’s Elysee Palace, which brought together Haftar’s son and advisers to Dbeibah.

Bangkok, Thailand – The orange campaign buses of Thailand’s opposition People’s Party have been hard to miss in recent weeks, winding through cities and villages carrying reformist politicians on what they call the “Choose the Future” tour.

At rally stops, thousands have gathered to hear promises of change.

On social media, videos of the candidates have drawn millions of views.

For many, the support for the party before Sunday’s general election has stirred hope that the democratic future it promises may finally be within reach.

But in Thailand, winning an election does not guarantee the right to govern.

Known simply as the Orange party for its signature colour, the People’s Party is the latest incarnation of a progressive movement that has repeatedly clashed with Thailand’s royalist conservative establishment. Its predecessor won the last election in 2023, taking 151 seats in the 500-member House. Yet it was blocked from power by a military-appointed Senate and later dissolved by the Constitutional Court over its calls to curb the powers of the monarchy.

“Our ‘soldiers’ might have grown in number, but the conservative side’s arsenal is still devastatingly strong,” said Thankrit Duangmaneeporn, co-director of Breaking the Cycle, a documentary about the “Orange Movement”. But he said he hoped the party could still force the entrenched establishment into a compromise by demonstrating overwhelming support at the polls.

“We will fight at the ballot box on Sunday,” he said. “That is all we can do.”

Overturned mandates

For more than a quarter-century, Thailand – a nation of about 71 million people – has been trapped in a dispiriting loop. Reformist parties win elections, only to be removed by courts, coups or other interventions by judges, generals and tycoons, all loyal to the monarchy.

Many fear the pattern is about to repeat itself.

While opinion polls suggest the People’s Party will again win the most seats on Sunday, analysts say the conservative Bhumjaithai Party, led by caretaker Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, stands a better chance of forming a government.

A January 30 survey by the National Institute of Development Administration put the People’s Party leader, Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut, in first place for prime minister with 29.1 percent, followed by Anutin at 22.4 percent. For party lists, the People’s Party led with 34.2 percent, followed by Bhumjaithai at 22.6 percent. In third was Pheu Thai, the party of jailed former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, with 16.2 percent.

A candidate for the top job must secure the backing of 251 legislators. Unless the People’s Party can reach that threshold on its own, analysts say Bhumjaithai could manoeuvre – with the support of conservative power brokers, Pheu Thai and smaller parties – into forming the next government.

The People’s Party traces its roots to the Future Forward Party, founded in 2018 with a pledge to curb the influence of unelected institutions. It quickly became the most serious challenge to elite domination of Thai politics and the economy in a generation, winning 81 seats in its first election in 2019.

But it was disbanded by the courts the following year.

Reconstituted as Move Forward, the party went on to win the 2023 election — only to be dissolved again the next year.

‘We don’t use money to buy power’

Rukchanok Srinork, a 32-year-old lawmaker for the reborn People’s Party’s Bangbon District in Bangkok, said past defeats should not extinguish hopes. Speaking from a rally stop in the northern city of Chiang Mai, Rukchanok, who goes by the nickname “Ice”, said her party has already changed Thai politics.

“We are a party that won an election without spending a single baht on buying votes,” she told Al Jazeera, referring to the vote-buying practices that have long shaped Thailand’s elections, particularly in rural areas.

“We don’t use money to buy power,” she said.

Rukchanok’s own rise reflects the party’s appeal.

Once an online vendor, she built a following through social media critiques of corruption and military overreach, then entered the National Assembly on the strength of that support. Her story, she said, showed what could be possible in a fairer system.

“When people understand they have a role and that their voice matters, they won’t lose hope in politics,” Rukchanok said.

But that idealism might not be enough.

Prinya Thaewanarumitkul, a legal scholar at Thammasat University, warned that “money politics” could still tilt outcomes in rural areas, even if voters increasingly “take the money but vote with their heart”.

For the People’s Party, the possibility of forming a government “becomes real” only if it secures 200 seats or more, he added.

A conservative counteroffensive

Anutin, the caretaker prime minister, is the heir to a construction fortune and the face of Thailand’s cannabis legalisation. He became prime minister in August after the Constitutional Court removed his predecessor, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, over her handling of a border crisis with Cambodia.

Since then, he has skilfully exploited nationalist sentiment around the conflict, which killed 149 people on both sides before a ceasefire in December.

“Anyone can say ‘choose me and you won’t regret it,’” Anutin told a rally near the border with Cambodia this week. “But Bhumjaithai says that with the military on our side, we will never be defeated.”

Backed by the royalist establishment, Anutin has assembled a team of seasoned figures from business and diplomatic circles and drawn support from powerful political dynasties that trade their support for cabinet positions.

His party has also rolled out populist policies, including a subsidy programme that covers half the cost of food and has proved popular among struggling households and small businesses.

“I don’t know many other policies,” said Buapan Anusak, 56, at a recent Bhumjaithai rally in Bangkok. “But there also has to be a prime minister that’s patriotic,” she added, referring to the border tensions.

Bhumjaithai has also made inroads into territory once dominated by Pheu Thai, the party that won every election from 2001 until the People’s Party’s breakthrough in 2023.

Pheu Thai’s founder Thaksin, now 76, remains a hero to many for policies like universal healthcare. But Pheu Thai has lost its mantle as the voice of reform to the People’s Party, after it placed second in the last election and joined military-backed parties to form a government. Since then, two of its governments have collapsed, with two prime ministers — including Thaksin’s daughter Paetongtarn — removed by the courts.

Thaksin is currently in prison, with a parole hearing scheduled for May, around the time a new government must be formed.

“Thaksin remains a master of the ‘deal,’” said Prinya, the scholar at Thammasat University. And given Thaksin’s legal troubles and the pending cases against his daughter, the politician “is heavily incentivised to maintain a partnership with the conservative establishment,” Prinya added.

Economic strain

Whoever wins on Sunday will inherit a country in economic distress.

Tariffs have hurt exporters, growth has slowed to less than 2 percent, and tourist arrivals have declined.

“This may be a last chance to repair Thailand’s once-Teflon economy,” said Pavida Pananond, a professor of international business at Thammasat University, referring to the country’s historical resilience. But to bounce back, political stability would be essential, she stressed.

“Respecting the results and avoiding political manoeuvring that derails democratic processes is essential to restore economic confidence,” she added.

Back on the campaign trail, Rukchanok urged Thais not to give up.

“The moment you stop sending your signal by voting, that is when the 1 percent who hold this country’s resources will decide for you,” she said. “People may look at politics and see something ‘dirty’ — full of bluffing, mudslinging and endless arguing. But your life can only change if politics changes.”

She paused, then added: “We still have faith in the people.”

Dhaka, Bangladesh – Ziaul Haque Tanin had planned his February around the T20 World Cup.

The former first-class cricketer turned sports-goods entrepreneur from Thakurgaon, in northwestern Bangladesh, had lined up a trip combining business, family visits and cricket fandom.

Tanin had secured a premium hospitality ticket at the famed Eden Gardens cricket stadium in Kolkata, where Bangladesh would take on Italy on February 9.

Those plans were scrapped after Bangladesh said it would not send its men’s team to India for the tournament, citing security concerns.

The Bangladesh Cricket Board had asked the International Cricket Council (ICC) to move Bangladesh’s matches from India to Sri Lanka, a request the governing body rejected. Bangladesh stood firm in their stance, resulting in their ouster from the tournament and Scotland’s inclusion at their expense.

The decision has drawn Bangladesh’s most popular sport into a wider political dispute, dividing opinion between supporters of the government’s stance and those fearing long-term ramifications on the game.

How cricket became a casualty of politics

Tensions sharpened after January 3, when Bangladesh fast bowler Mustafizur Rahman was dropped from the Indian Premier League, a move that Bangladeshi officials said highlighted the impact of extremist pressure on Indian cricket authorities.

In Dhaka, the episode amplified wider resentment towards India, rooted in trade disputes and anger over New Delhi hosting fugitive former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina since her ousting in August 2024.

In that charged atmosphere, cricket – Bangladesh’s most emotional public arena – became a proxy for questions of security and national dignity, with debate dominating social media, television talk shows and conversations in Mirpur, the heart of the country’s cricket culture.

About a year and a half after Bangladesh’s July 2024 mass uprising, signs of a thaw appeared in relations with India.

Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar visited Dhaka for the funeral of former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, while Prime Minister Narendra Modi sent a conciliatory letter to Tarique Rahman, Khaleda’s son, followed by a brief meeting between Jaishankar and Rahman.

Indian High Commission contacts with Jamaat-e-Islami further fuelled speculation that New Delhi was recalibrating its Bangladesh policy ahead of elections.

That cautious optimism, however, was abruptly undercut by actions of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), pulling cricket into the centre of a renewed political standoff.

Security first, cricket second

Many supporters say the government had little room to manoeuvre.

Shamim Chowdhury, head of research at Dhaka-based sports channel T Sports, said the issue had hurt Bangladesh’s sentiments and questioned the role of the ICC. “The ICC’s double standards have been exposed,” he told Al Jazeera.

Abu Zarr Ansar Ahmed, a sports journalist in Dhaka, said the security concern goes beyond players and includes staff, journalists and supporters. With national elections approaching, he warned that even a single incident involving Bangladeshi nationals in India could trigger widespread anger at home. “From that perspective, Bangladesh made the right decision,” he said.

Others accept the security logic but are concerned about the long-term cost to cricket. Khairul Islam, a Dhaka-based university lecturer, said the threat level should have been assessed more carefully and suggested a third-country venue as an alternative.

On the streets, support appears strong. At a tea stall in Dhaka’s Tejgaon area, vendor Billal Hossain backed the boycott, citing violence against Muslims in India and border tensions. “If something happened to our players, it would be disastrous,” he said.

Of 14 people interviewed by Al Jazeera across Dhaka, seven supported the government’s decision, three opposed it – all identifying as supporters of Hasina’s party, the Awami League – while four declined to state party affiliations but still backed the boycott. Overall, support outweighs opposition, with dissent largely driven by concerns over cricketing consequences rather than security.

Players regret missed opportunity

The protagonist of the story, Bangladesh’s cricket team, have stayed largely silent, wary of being drawn into a diplomatic dispute, though privately many are anxious.

Two national team players, speaking to Al Jazeera on the condition of anonymity, said the squad had prepared intensively and felt confident after a strong run in T20 cricket. In 2025, Bangladesh won 15 of 30 matches – their best calendar-year record in the shortest format of the game.

“We felt ready,” one player said.

Both relayed the team’s eagerness to play in the T20 World Cup – in India or elsewhere – and had hoped for a compromise on venue. Missing the tournament, they said, means more than the loss of lost match fees – it limits their exposure to quality opposition, franchise opportunities and career growth.

“It’s not just money,” one player said. “It’s the chance to grow.”

Neither player criticised the government or the board publicly, saying that with India central to the dispute, speaking out felt risky.

However, Bangladesh’s absence from the T20 World Cup has left national cricketers facing an unexpected break. To make use of this vacant period, the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) has offered them a swiftly-organised local T20 tournament.

The three-team event, titled “Odommo Bangladesh T20 Cup”, will offer 25 million taka ($200,000) in total tournament prize money and player fees.

‘The sadness of not playing is bigger’

Not all cricket figures back the hardline stance.

Former Bangladesh batter Anamul Haque Bijoy urged keeping sport above politics, saying that a World Cup is the pinnacle of a cricketer’s career and a dream not many can realise.

“Sports should be above everything,” he said.

Others challenged the critics directly.

Behind the scenes, criticism has been sharper. Former BCB director Ahmed Sajjadul Alam said the decision reflected government interference, warning of financial losses and damage to Bangladesh’s standing within the ICC.

Another former director, Syed Ashraful Haque, who helped secure Bangladesh’s Test status, said the country’s influence in world cricket had weakened and argued the issue could have been resolved through dialogue.

Former captain Mohammad Ashraful took a pragmatic view, noting that government approval is mandatory for tours. While acknowledging the disappointment – especially for younger players – he said financial losses could be managed, but “the sadness of not playing is bigger”.

Pakistan’s backing and what comes next

The dispute has taken on a regional dimension after the Pakistan Cricket Board backed Bangladesh and urged the ICC to reconsider venue arrangements. While some in Dhaka see this as a challenge to India’s dominance, officials reject the idea of a new alliance.

Former BCB director Alam dismissed talk of a Bangladesh-Pakistan axis, calling Pakistan a longstanding cricketing friend. BCB officials also avoided any suggestion of formal alignment.

The BCB says the matter is closed and it will not pursue arbitration. “We have accepted the ICC’s decision,” said Amjad Hossain, a BCB director.

Attention has now shifted to managing the fallout. Suggestions of extra tournaments to offset player losses remain unconfirmed, with the board saying benefits are being handled internally.

The government’s youth and sports adviser, Asif Nazrul, said the decision not to travel was taken at cabinet level after the ICC refused to revise the schedule.

For fans like Tanin, the cost is personal – cancelled plans, unused visas and an idle World Cup ticket – reflecting a wider national sense of loss as cricket once again collides with politics.

Pakistan’s decision not to take part in its match against India at the T20 World Cup has sent shockwaves through world cricket, with its impact also being felt in Bangladesh.

Multiple senior sources at the BCB said the move could reduce the board’s potential earnings from the ICC. However, a top BCB official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said there was little the board could do at this stage. He added that the crisis could still be resolved through dialogue at any time.

Referring to Pakistan’s boycott, he said Pakistan has always been a good friend of Bangladesh in cricket and has maintained a consistently friendly relationship.

Diplomacy in the dark

Questions have emerged over how diplomatic communication was handled. An official at Bangladesh’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the government was not formally engaged in the process, as the BCB communicated directly with the ICC.

Neither the BCB nor the Ministry of Youth and Sports issued any directive to involve the Foreign Ministry, leaving officials largely reliant on media reports.

Political and diplomatic analyst and former Bangladeshi ambassador Humayun Kabir said the situation has grown more opaque due to recklessness on both sides. He argued that groups in both Bangladesh and India actively work to derail normalisation efforts, using multiple flashpoints – with cricket now possibly added to that list.

Once a unifying force, cricket in Bangladesh is now caught in politics. Supporters see sovereignty, critics see a setback for a promising generation, and players see a lost stage.

Whether this strengthens Bangladesh’s position or weakens its standing in world cricket remains unclear – but the cost is already being felt far beyond the boundary rope.