One of the fundamental conditions for maintaining political stability in a state is ensuring the professional neutrality, accountability, and constitutional responsibility of public officials. Administrative officers play a crucial role in preserving institutional balance between political parties within the state structure. However, when the administrative system becomes subordinated to partisan influence, the institutional foundation of the state gradually weakens. As a consequence, democracy itself not only becomes vulnerable but, at times, its very existence comes into question.
The state is inherently a political institution, and political parties are an integral part of it. Although the Constitution of Bangladesh recognizes democracy as the core principle of governance, democracy in the political culture of the Indian subcontinent has rarely developed into a fully institutionalized system. Bangladesh is no exception. Since independence, the country has repeatedly experienced different forms of authoritarian rule under the façade of democracy.
Immediately after independence, flawed elections and the establishment of BAKSAL dismantled the multi-party political structure. Later, military coups, prolonged military rule, and shifting political equations shaped the country’s trajectory. Although the mass uprising of 1990 created hope for the restoration of democracy, the political realities that followed the 1991 election repeatedly challenged that expectation. The Magura by-election, the one-sided election of 1996, and subsequent political confrontations continuously weakened democratic institutions. However, after 2008, the crisis deepened further as constitutional institutions increasingly came under executive control. This raised serious public concerns regarding administrative neutrality and the effectiveness of democratic institutions.
In this context, the role of public servants becomes critically important. Although they operate under the executive branch of government, their conduct and responsibilities are regulated by clear laws and codes of conduct. According to the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979, no public official is allowed to engage directly or indirectly in political activities. Yet, the reality often reflects the opposite. In many cases, partisan loyalty, political identity, and overt support for the ruling party have become major factors behind promotions and institutional influence within the administration.
Recently, a high-ranking police official publicly expressed loyalty to the government and openly embraced the ideology of the ruling party during a speech. Despite the presence of top government officials at the event, no visible concern or administrative action followed. Yet Rule 25 of the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979 clearly states that no public servant may become a member of any political party or participate in political activities. Such incidents therefore represent not only violations of official conduct rules, but also serious threats to administrative neutrality itself.
Bangladesh’s recent political history demonstrates how politicized and submissive bureaucracies can push a state toward dangerous instability. Over the years, administrative culture based on political allegiance has weakened democratic institutions and eroded public trust. Following recent political movements and democratic aspirations, there was hope that the administrative structure would return to a path of neutrality and accountability. In reality, however, signs of continued politicization remain evident. Even unofficial recommendation letters from MPs and ministers regarding promotions have become increasingly normalized.
Rules 20 and 30 of the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules prohibit public servants from using political or external influence regarding service-related matters. Furthermore, the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2018 provide punishments ranging from reprimand and demotion to compulsory retirement or dismissal for misconduct. Yet due to the lack of effective enforcement, these regulations often remain confined to paper rather than practice.
Democracy is not merely an election-centered system; it is fundamentally an institution-centered political culture. That culture becomes strong only when the administration rises above political loyalty and remains accountable solely to the Constitution, the law, and the people. The democratic future of Bangladesh largely depends on restoring that institutional balance. Otherwise, merit, professionalism, and constitutional responsibility within the administration will continue to surrender to political favoritism and partisan interests, ultimately weakening the state itself and undermining its democratic foundations.
