Why Bangladesh’s national elections feel like local elections in disguise
As Bangladesh enters another national election cycle, campaign promises once again focus on roads, drains and local services. But this familiar pattern reveals a deeper distortion in the country’s parliamentary democracy — where MPs act as service providers rather than lawmakers
Tarique Rahman, chairperson of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), is contesting from two constituencies. One of them is Dhaka-17, where he has promised to construct apartments for the slum dwellers of Korail and parks for residents of Gulshan and Banani.
Mirza Abbas, BNP's candidate for Dhaka-8, unlike his viral opponent, has been visiting neighbourhoods, sitting with residents, and compiling lists of their day-to-day problems. He has promised to reclaim the Shahjahanpur lake and develop it along the lines of Hatirjheel, fix the area's drainage system, and improve local markets, among other pledges.
Barrister Mir Ahmad Bin Quasem Arman, the Jamaat-e-Islami candidate for Dhaka-14, has promised to create a large playing field for children in every ward and renovate the Shah Ali Mazar, among other commitments.
Md Jonaed Hossain, the Jamaat-e-Islami candidate for Brahmanbaria-3, has offered a long list of promises, including speeding up the construction of a four-lane highway, increasing the number of beds at Brahmanbaria Sadar Hospital from 250 to 500, establishing a medical college and a public university in the constituency, and dredging the Titas River.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
Ariful Islam, the candidate of the National Citizen's Party (NCP) for Dhaka-18, has promised to remove all chemical warehouses, factories and hazardous restaurants from residential areas of Uttara, as well as to build parks, indoor turfs for children, and clubs for young people.
But none of these campaign promises fall within the formal remit of elected Members of Parliament (MPs).
As Bangladesh heads into yet another national election cycle, a familiar pattern has returned. Campaign speeches are dominated by promises of roads, gas connections, drainage, and local facilities. Voters demand visible development. Candidates respond in kind. Almost entirely absent from the conversation are discussions of laws, policy, parliamentary oversight, or institutional reform.
This is neither accidental nor merely a campaign tactic. It is the product of a long historical evolution in which MPs in Bangladesh — and across much of the Indian subcontinent — never fully became lawmakers in the Westminster sense.
Instead, they evolved into local problem-solvers and brokers of state resources, more Tammany Hall-style political bosses than legislators.
This distortion has weakened local government, empowered the bureaucracy, and entrenched a rent-seeking political economy.
MPs as service providers, not lawmakers
This confusion over responsibility sits at the heart of Bangladesh's electoral politics.
In theory, MPs are legislators. Their core mandate is to make laws, shape policy, and hold the executive accountable. In practice, however, they are judged almost entirely on their ability to deliver local development.
Asif Shahan, professor of Development Studies at the University of Dhaka, said, "Everyone is talking about local problems. But there are two separate issues here. Let me set MPs aside for a moment and focus on the demand side. Everyone is demanding things from MPs — 'fix this road', 'solve this problem'. And MPs respond by saying, 'Yes, I'll do it.' But no one is asking the MP how they are actually going to do it. Because, frankly, this is not their responsibility."
According to Mohamed Abdul Baten, assistant professor at North South University's Department of Political Science and Sociology, this mismatch is deeply historical.
"If you look at the political culture across the Indian subcontinent, you will see that the Westminster-style role of MPs never fully evolved here in its classical form," he said.
Instead, MPs came to be seen as the collective voice of local demands rather than national lawmakers. This perception was shaped by uneven development, weak local institutions, and persistent deprivation.
"Even today, when we talk about development, we mostly mean infrastructure," Baten said. "A large section of the population remains deprived of basic services. As a result, people's first and most urgent demand is area-based development. In that sense, people see development — not lawmaking — as the primary duty of their representative."
The subcontinental legacy
The roots of this distortion can be traced back to colonial governance. Under British rule, legislative councils had limited authority, while real power lay with the colonial bureaucracy. That structure persisted through the Pakistan period and, in many ways, into independent Bangladesh.
"The historical reason is that lawmakers in this region have always had limited capacity to actually make laws — during the British period, the Pakistan period, and even in Bangladesh," said Firoz Ahmed, political analyst and researcher. "As a result, political competition has largely shifted towards controlling resource allocation rather than lawmaking itself."
This shift fundamentally altered electoral incentives. MPs did not gain influence by drafting legislation or shaping national policy. They gained influence by accessing budgets, influencing bureaucrats and delivering projects.
Over time, this dynamic transformed MPs into intermediaries between citizens and the state — brokers rather than lawmakers.
Weak local government, strong bureaucracy
This distortion has had cascading institutional effects. As MPs absorbed local development functions, local governments were hollowed out.
Badiul Alam Majumdar, economist, activist and governance expert, said, "It is truly sad that our MPs meddle with local governance. The nose can't do the mouth's job. And this creates 'MP raj' at the local level where the MPs become too powerful and create many problems."
"It is not just a conflict of interest," he added, noting that this is illegal and unconstitutional.
He pointed to a 2003-04 ruling by the High Court that said MPs, whips or ministers have no role in the local activities of their constituencies.
"When local government institutions are weak — when they cannot pass budgets, raise revenues, or decide to build a road — the problem becomes structural," Ahmed said. "Local governments have virtually no independent sources of income. Whatever limited fiscal authority they once had has gradually been taken away."
The result is a paradox. Bangladesh has elected local representatives — union parishad chairmen and upazila chairmen — but they lack real authority. At the same time, unelected bureaucrats wield enormous discretionary power.
"The bureaucracy has historically been the principal decision-maker," Ahmed said. "Its fundamental weakness is that it lacks popular legitimacy. Because of this, it needs a formally legitimate government in front of it. But in practice, it is the bureaucracy that exercises real power."
This inversion of authority produces everyday absurdities. "This is why a union chairman ends up calling a UNO 'sir'," he said. "The chairman is an elected representative, but allocation of power lies with the bureaucrat."
The rent-seeking equilibrium
The institutional vacuum created by weak local government and confused parliamentary roles has been filled by informal systems.
"When MPs fail to understand their actual responsibilities — when they don't engage with legal and policy issues — they end up strengthening the bureaucracy instead," Shahan said. "By not understanding policy, MPs empower the bureaucracy, and this creates a trap."
That trap is rent-seeking. Development projects are "managed". Welfare lists are personalised. Contracts require political clearance. Musclemen compete for elected office not to legislate, but to control access.
"That is why you will see musclemen competing fiercely to become MPs or upazila chairmen," Ahmed said. "They are not chasing public service; they are chasing control over informal systems."
Social welfare programmes illustrate the problem starkly.
"Most social welfare programmes in Bangladesh are not universal," Ahmed noted. "Political parties decide who qualifies and who does not. When allocation depends on discretion, abuse becomes inevitable."
What the Westminster system actually looks like
In the UK — the archetype of the Westminster system — MPs are rarely expected to build roads or deliver services. Those responsibilities lie with local councils, which have independent taxation powers, guaranteed fiscal transfers, and clear legal authority. MPs lobby for their constituencies, legislate, and pass laws to facilitate change.
"What MPs can do — and rarely talk about — is lawmaking and oversight," Shahan said. "They can ask: Is there a legal or policy issue here? Can I change the law? They can summon WASA, DPDC, and ministries and ask why services failed. This is squarely within their mandate."
British MPs scrutinise bills, question ministers, and hold the executive to account. Parliamentary committees routinely summon civil servants, demand documents, and issue binding recommendations. A UK MP promising to personally fix a drainage problem would likely be ridiculed rather than rewarded.
Crucially, British local elections are genuinely local, while national elections are unmistakably national.
This separation did not emerge overnight. It was built through strong local institutions, political education, and rule-based governance.
What Bangladesh needs — but does not yet have
None of the experts argue that Bangladesh can simply copy and paste the UK model.
"A Westminster-style system can only function properly when citizens have at least a minimum level of political understanding," Baten said. "The manifestation of democracy in highly educated societies and less educated societies is never identical."
Still, the direction of reform is clear.
"What MPs can do — and rarely talk about — is lawmaking and oversight," Shahan said. "They can ask: Is there a legal or policy issue here? Can I change the law? They can summon WASA, DPDC, and ministries and ask why services failed. This is squarely within their mandate. Interestingly, the independent candidate from Dhaka-9 has been focusing on such policymaking promises in her manifesto."
Stronger parliaments would allow stronger local governments by removing MPs from day-to-day service delivery and restoring authority to elected local bodies. In turn, this would constrain bureaucratic discretion and shrink the space for rent-seeking.
For now, however, Bangladesh remains stuck in an in-between state. National elections continue to be fought on local promises. Party symbols mask constituency bargaining. MPs campaign as problem-solvers rather than lawmakers.
"This is not solely the failure of political parties," Baten cautioned. "It is deeply connected to our political culture and public consciousness."
Until that changes, Bangladesh's parliament will remain underpowered, local governments will remain weak, and the bureaucracy will remain the central actor — quietly shaping policy behind the scenes. And national elections will continue to look like local elections, just in disguise.
Shadique Mahbub Islam is a journalist.
