The political parties in Bangladesh are trapped in a cycle of family dominance, top-down decision-making, and favour-based politics. This system stifles democracy and holds back economic progress. Unlike mature democracies, we cannot suddenly copy their models or erase decades of entrenched practices, but the spirit of our 1971 Liberation War, the 1990 pro-democracy movement, and the July 2024 uprising show our people's unyielding demand for change.

Reforms must suit Bangladesh's reality. They need to be practical, step-by-step, and grounded in our political culture. History and global examples offer useful lessons—not perfect blueprints, but roadmaps we can adapt.

The illusion of instant transformation

Some envision Bangladesh rapidly replacing its current system with fully institutionalised, merit-based parties. However, this overlooks the formidable barriers we face: entrenched patronage networks, weak accountability mechanisms, and powerful vested interests that benefit from maintaining the status quo.

The experience of the United States is instructive. Their party system required a century to establish its basic structure and another century to implement significant internal reforms. Even today, their democracy continues to grapple with the corrupting influence of money in politics. This serves as both a cautionary tale and a reminder that meaningful change takes time.

Rushing for radical changes without first building necessary institutions risks instability, not progress. Instead, the focus should be on incremental reforms that gradually shift incentives towards inclusive and transparent governance, as seen in Indonesia and Mexico, where parties successfully navigated similar transitions.

Read more

Democratic reforms must begin with political parties

Steps towards accountability

A humble beginning could be with checks within the existing party structures, rather than attempting full-blown intra-party democracy immediately. After Indonesia's Suharto fell in 1998, his former ruling party, Golkar—once synonymous with cronyism—began requiring internal elections and term limits for regional leaders. While dynasties retained influence, these cracks in the system allowed competent newcomers to rise.

Britain's Conservative Party transformed from an 1800s aristocratic club to a modern organisation through decades of gradual steps: local branches (1830s), formal membership (1860s), and eventually open leadership contests.

For Bangladesh, term limits for mid-level leaders (e.g. district unit presidents) and expanded electoral colleges for top posts could begin loosening dynastic control, one careful step at a time.

Following the money

Sudden crackdowns on party financing might disrupt politics before alternatives exist. Brazil took a smarter path in the 1990s: it paired public campaign funds with rules requiring disclosure of large donations. Pakistan's 2017 Election Act, despite uneven enforcement, at least set clear rules for donation limits and candidate spending.

The US took a full 70 years to develop its campaign finance regulations: beginning with the 1907 Tillman Act banning corporate donations, followed by the 1925 Federal Corrupt Practices Act mandating disclosures, and culminating in the more comprehensive 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act. Yet, even today, money remains a distorting factor in American politics, a sobering reminder that no system is perfect.

Bangladesh might consider starting with mandatory disclosure of donations exceeding Tk 10 lakh, followed by the introduction of independent financial audits, and eventually moving towards a system of partial public funding for parties that demonstrate compliance, mirroring Germany's successful post-war approach to reducing political corruption.

Picking candidates fairly

Open primaries may be too much too soon. South Africa's ANC found a middle way after apartheid: local branches suggest candidates, but the central party vets the final list, mixing grassroots input with organisational control.

Even the US primary system grew slowly. Early 1900s experiments only became standard in the 1970s. Some states still use party conventions alongside primaries. India's BJP lets local members voice opinions, though Delhi ultimately decides.

Bangladesh could pilot "consultative nominations": local leaders propose candidates for central approval, with more open methods tested first in municipal elections—mirroring the UK Labour Party's 20th-century evolution.

Read more

The case for internal reforms within political parties

From personalities to policies

Today's politics revolves around leaders, not ideas. South Korea changed this in the 2000s by requiring parties to publish detailed, cost policy plans reviewed by experts. Suddenly, voters expected substance, not just handouts.

The US's journey from 19th century backroom deals to today's detailed platforms took generations. China, under its one-party system, lets local members vote on some leadership roles.

Here, parties could submit manifestoes to independent analysts, with media partners broadcasting the findings—following Sweden's model of public policy report cards.

Giving opposition space to breathe

Big constitutional changes may spark resistance, but small moves can empower opposition voices.

Britain formalised opposition rights over 150 years: first recognising the "Leader of the Opposition" title in the early 19th century, adding a salary in 1937, and finally codifying opposition rights in parliamentary procedures.

After Malaysia's 2018 reforms, opposition leaders gained committee seats, improving oversight without upending the system. Nepal's constitution (Article 91) guarantees opposition roles—a South Asian example we could tweak.

The power of patience

Reforming Bangladesh's parties would not happen in one election cycle. But global experience proves that steady, smart steps work. We can begin with achievable goals: term limits for mid-level leaders, transparent party financing, more inclusive candidate selection, policy-based competition, and basic opposition rights.

The real hurdle is not knowing what to do—it's maintaining pressure for change. Civil society, media, and citizens must keep demanding progress.

For our political leaders, reform is not just idealism—it's survival. Systems that resist evolution eventually collapse. Bangladesh's parties can choose gradual change today or risk upheaval tomorrow. The Bangladesh spirit reminds us: transformation is possible when the people lead.

Dr Rashed Al Mahmud Titumir is professor in the Department of Development Studies at the University of Dhaka.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own. 

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.