Bangladesh is currently at a turning point in its governance system given its rich legacy of fight for democracy and self-determination. The reform commission’s plan to split the nation into four provinces offers a chance to improve responsibility, distribute authority, and guarantee that every person has a say in the decisions. Although some contend that Bangladesh is too tiny to implement a federal system, the example of Nepal—a nation smaller than Bangladesh—showcases how well federalism empowers local communities and guarantees equitable growth. Bangladesh now has the chance to reject its extremely centralised government structure and embrace federalism in order to create a more inclusive and responsible government.
Building responsibility under a federal system
More accountability would be one of the main advantages of a federal Bangladesh. The concentration of political power in Dhaka now results in a situation wherein local issues are often subordinated to national politics. Policies and choices are dictated from the central rather than being customised to local requirements, therefore government officials and political leaders stay cut off from the people they represent.
Dividing Bangladesh into four provinces would provide the local people direct responsibility. Provincial governments would be in charge of managing their own affairs, therefore enabling the voters to hold their leaders responsible for both achievements and mistakes. This would encourage more civic participation as people would be able to see directly how their votes impact provincial policy. Local level impact of governance would inspire politicians to be more efficient, open, and sensitive in handling regional problems.
Decentralisation: Giving people authority
Long hailed as a way to guarantee better government, decentralisation has long been underused; a federal Bangladesh would be a big step towards fulfilling this goal. All important decisions are now taken in Dhaka, which results in ineffective handling of local issues and delays. A federal system would provide more equitable distribution of authority, therefore assuring that local problems be handled at the province level instead of being subject to bureaucratic congestion in the capital.
Provincial administrations would enable policies and development programs to be tailored to regional requirements rather than imposed from Dhaka. More efficient government would result from provinces’ authority over their infrastructure, healthcare, education, and economic policies. This would also result in more economic development as every province could concentrate on its own advantages instead of following a one-size-fits-all solution.
Provincial administrations would enable policies and development programs to be tailored to regional requirements rather than imposed from Dhaka. More efficient government would result from provinces’ authority over their infrastructure, healthcare, education, and economic policies. This would also result in more economic development as every province could concentrate on its own advantages instead of following a one-size-fits-all solution.
Shattering Dhaka’s political monopoly
The concentration of political power in Dhaka has resulted in a distortion of national politics. Every significant political party has its headquarters in Dhaka, hence the views of individuals from distant areas are often disregarded. Many towns have so lacked political representation, which has led in regional differences in development.
A federal system would support the development of local political parties that really speak for their communities. Political variety would blossom and government would not be controlled only by national parties detached from the reality of the many parts of their nation. Strong regional administrations would guarantee that politics is no more Dhaka-centric, therefore promoting a better and more representative democracy.
Learning from our neighbours: successful federal model of Nepal
Federalist detractors often contend that Bangladesh is too tiny to implement such a system. This reasoning collapses, however, when we consider Nepal’s scenario. Nepal embraced federalism in 2015 even though its population and area are less than that of Bangladesh. From then, Nepal has benefited much from its federal system.
For an opposite viewpoint: https://muktipotro.com/6224
First of all, the federal system of Nepal has greatly enhanced local level of government. By concentrating on regionally specific problems, provincial administrations have been able to design more sensible policies and carry them out. Local delegates now have the power to directly meet the demands of their constituents, therefore lowering the inefficiencies afflicting the nation under its past centralised structure.
Second, Nepal’s increased inclusiveness results from federalism. Historically underprivileged groups now have a say in government as they may choose delegates from their local areas who share their issues. This has helped to resolve long-standing resentment and results in more fair growth all throughout the nation.
Thirdly, economic growth now seems more in line. Nepal’s federal system guarantees that development initiatives are shared more fairly across all provinces, therefore avoiding concentration of resources in Kathmandu. In formerly neglected communities, this has produced better infrastructure, healthcare, and educational opportunities.
Should Nepal, a smaller nation than Bangladesh, be able to gain from federalism, there is no justification for Bangladesh not doing the same. The claim that Bangladesh is too small for a federal system is just baseless and overlooks the real benefits seen in Nepal.
Avoiding Sri Lanka’s mistakes and empowering the periphery
Bangladesh has to give the models established by other South Asian countries great thought. Federal systems of India, Pakistan, and Nepal all provide for regional autonomy and more representation. By contrast, Sri Lanka remains a unitary state mainly to prevent its Tamil minority from acquiring further autonomy. Years of ethnic tensions and warfare in Sri Lanka have resulted from the country’s rejection to embrace a federal government.
Bangladesh cannot copy Sri Lanka by keeping a very centralised government. Our nation has a varied population with unique regional identities; a federal system would let these identities be spoken within a one national framework. Bangladesh will strengthen its periphery rather than marginalise it by giving regions authority. Since all areas would be involved in government, this would help to promote more national unity.
A Federal Bangladesh towards a stronger future
With its severe centralisation of authority in Dhaka, Bangladesh’s present government style is antiquated and ineffectual dividing the nation into four provinces is a chance to improve responsibility, distribute authority, and create a more representative political structure. A federal Bangladesh will guarantee that the government is nearer to the people, therefore enabling more fair development and better application of policies.
The success of federalism in Nepal indicates how much a nation smaller than Bangladesh may gain from such a structure. Moreover, in line with the federal states of South Asia—India, Pakistan, and Nepal—rather than adhering to the unitary model of Sri Lanka, Bangladesh would find the correct route towards more democracy and regional empowerment.
Bangladesh should welcome federalism and create a government structure that really benefits every one of its citizens. Stronger, more wealthy, and more democratic Bangladesh will follow from the empowerment of local communities, the expansion of regional political groups, and the decentralisation of authority.
Anupam Debashis Roy is the Editor-in-Chief of Muktipotro and a PhD student at the University of Oxford. He can be reached at anupam.roy@sociology.ox.ac.uk
Leave A Reply