Mahmudul Hasan
Founder, Shokriyo
In Bangladesh, democracy is too often treated as a periodic event rather than a continuous process. Elections are held, governments are formed, and development achievements are highlighted. Yet citizens’ influence over public decision-making between elections remains limited, inconsistent, and largely symbolic. This narrow understanding of democracy is no longer sustainable. If Bangladesh is serious about accountable governance, social justice, and inclusive development, active citizenship must move from the margins of political life to its centre.
The Constitution of Bangladesh leaves little room for ambiguity. Article 7 declares that all powers of the republic belong to the people, while Article 11 commits the state to democracy, human rights, and effective participation. These provisions establish citizen agency as the foundation of the political system. In practice, however, participation is largely reduced to voting. Sustained civic engagement means questioning authority, monitoring institutions, and demanding accountability; yet it is often viewed with discomfort rather than recognized as a democratic right. This disconnect between constitutional promise and political reality lies at the heart of Bangladesh’s democratic deficit.
Active citizenship goes beyond formal participation. It refers to the ability and willingness of people to engage continuously in public life by shaping policies, scrutinising power, and holding institutions accountable. Far from undermining stability, active citizenship strengthens it. A growing body of international evidence shows that governance outcomes improve when citizens remain engaged beyond elections. The World Bank’s governance assessments consistently identify citizen oversight as one of the most effective tools for reducing corruption and improving public service delivery, particularly at the local level. Where civic engagement is weak or constrained, institutions tend to become opaque, unresponsive, and increasingly detached from public needs.
Bangladesh’s own governance indicators reflect this pattern. Transparency International Bangladesh continues to document systemic corruption, weak enforcement of laws, and limited accountability across public institutions. Similarly, the World Governance Indicators place Bangladesh low on “voice and accountability,” despite steady economic growth over the past decade. These shortcomings are not abstract metrics. They shape everyday experiences, delays in accessing public services, discretionary decision-making, ineffective grievance redress mechanisms, and public policies that often fail to reflect citizens’ lived realities.
Young people are central to this democratic challenge. According to the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, more than 60 percent of the population is under the age of 35. This demographic reality represents an opportunity for democratic renewal. Yet youth remain structurally excluded from decision-making spaces. Student politics is deeply politicised, independent youth organising is marginalised, and civic engagement outside party structures is often treated with suspicion. This exclusion is not only unjust; it is politically short-sighted. Democracies that fail to integrate meaningfully young citizens risk long-term legitimacy crises, social alienation, and declining public trust.
Recent civic movements demonstrate that Bangladeshi youth are not apathetic. From the road safety protests to climate justice advocacy and labour rights campaigns, young people have repeatedly mobilised around issues of public concern. These movements exposed governance failures, challenged official narratives, and forced critical issues onto the national agenda. However, they also revealed a deeper institutional weakness: the absence of credible pathways to translate citizen demands into policy reform. When peaceful civic action is dismissed, restricted, or delegitimised rather than constructively engaged, frustration deepens and trust in institutions erodes.
The democratic gap is perhaps most visible at the local government level. Bangladesh’s laws mandate citizen participation through ward shavas, open budget meetings, and standing committees at the Union Parishad level. On paper, local government is meant to be the foundation of participatory democracy. In practice, these mechanisms are often inactive, poorly attended, or dominated by local elites. Transparency International Bangladesh has found that many ward meetings are either not held at all or conducted without meaningful citizen input, undermining their purpose as spaces for deliberation and accountability.
This failure is not merely administrative; it is fundamentally political. Genuine participation requires elected representatives to share information, justify decisions, and accept scrutiny. Instead, participation is frequently reduced to box-ticking exercises that fulfil legal requirements without influencing outcomes. Symbolic participation weakens democratic legitimacy rather than strengthening it. When citizens realise that their presence does not affect decisions, disengagement becomes a rational response.
In response to these institutional shortcomings, digital platforms have increasingly become alternative spaces for civic engagement, particularly for young people. Social media now functions as an informal public sphere where governance failures are documented and debated in real time. While digital activism has limitations and risks, it has also exposed institutional blind spots that formal participatory processes often overlook. Attempts to regulate online civic expression without addressing underlying governance failures risk further alienating citizens rather than restoring public trust.
It is important to distinguish between participation and active citizenship. Active citizenship is a civic mindset- a sense of agency, responsibility, and entitlement to engage in public affairs. Participation is the institutional expression of that mindset. Bangladesh currently suffers from deficits in both. Civic education remains largely theoretical, emphasising obedience and compliance over critical thinking, rights, and democratic practice. Participatory institutions exist, but often lack enforcement, transparency, and consequences for non-compliance. Without active citizens, participatory mechanisms become hollow rituals. Without credible participation, civic energy turns into frustration, protest, or withdrawal.
Reversing this trend requires political will rather than rhetorical commitment. Civic education must prioritise constitutional rights, democratic responsibilities, and critical engagement from an early age. Local government institutions must be compelled legally and politically to operationalise participatory mechanisms, with clear consequences for non-compliance. Public access to information on budgets, development projects, and service delivery must become the norm rather than the exception, enabling citizens to engage based on evidence rather than speculation.
Most importantly, the state must abandon the false dichotomy between stability and participation. There is no sustainable stability without accountability. Bangladesh’s own history shows that citizen mobilisation has been central to every major democratic milestone from the Language Movement to the struggle for independence and the restoration of democracy. Active citizenship is not a favour granted by the state; it is a constitutional right.
Democracy cannot survive as a top-down arrangement managed by elites and renewed only through elections. It requires informed, organised, and assertive citizens, especially young citizens who can question power without fear and participate without permission. Bangladesh’s democratic future will ultimately be shaped not by how often citizens vote, but by how freely and meaningfully they are allowed to engage in the republic that belongs to them.
References
- Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh
Article 7: http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-print-367/section-print-24555.html
Article 11: http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-367/section-24559.html
World Bank, Worldwide Governance Indicators
https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/worldwide-governance-indicators