Bangladesh is at a rare moment of renewal since August 2024, defined by public demand for participatory democracy, accountability, and dignity in governance. If we want democracy to be truly people-focused, we cannot ignore the union parishad, which is the country’s most immediate interface with citizens. Sadly, ordinary people are disillusioned by the dysfunction of this mechanism, which could be a strong entry point for them to participate in the democratic process.
Union parishads are the gateway to essential services, including social safety nets. But as a position paper by the Brac Institute of Governance and Development (BIGD) points out, they have too often failed the very citizens they were meant to serve.
The findings from Kumira union in Satkhira expose deep-rooted flaws: Committees that exist only on paper, corruption normalized as “fees” for access, and information deliberately kept out of public reach. It shows how corruption, elite capture, and secrecy have turned local government into a barrier rather than a bridge for the poor.
Yet these failures exist alongside real historical progress. Following the restoration of democracy in 1991, successive governments expanded social safety net programs, including the Old Age Allowance (1997), the Widow Allowance (1998), maternal health vouchers, and education stipends.
Many respondents in recent fieldwork acknowledged this shift. One person from Comilla remarked, “Before 2000, there were no old-age or widow allowances. Now, the parishad plays a central role in delivering these benefits.”
This evolution, which went from paper-based local administration to digital welfare delivery, has positioned the union parishad as an indispensable provider of rural services.
But even these improvements have been compromised by the same governance failures that undermine other aspects of parishad operations. 13 standing committees are supposed to ensure fairness in the delivery of services such as social safety nets. In reality, they are inactive, dominated by elites, and reduced to rubber stamps for the chairman’s office.
Access to information on budgets, services, or entitlements is deliberately limited. Residents report that to receive rations or allowances, they are often asked to pay “informal fees” to the chairman’s associates.
The very people who most need protection are instead burdened with exploitation. A woman in Cox’s Bazar shared that she had to pay Tk4,000 to secure a widow allowance card. And while digital systems like UDCs and Nagad transfers have reduced some intermediaries, they have introduced new challenges.
Errors in online records cause delays, older citizens struggle with digital forms, and server crashes during peak periods make basic services frustratingly inaccessible. These lived experiences highlight a simple truth that, despite modernization, corruption and weak accountability continue to shape who benefits and who is left behind.
These failures do not come from nowhere; they are the predictable outcomes of politicized elections, unchecked power, and a culture of corruption.
And thus, widows go without allowances, poor families pay bribes for food rations, and marginalized groups are cut out by nepotism.
In theory, the 13 standing committees should guarantee fairness and accountability. In reality, power is centralized in the chairman’s office, and the decisions reflect political loyalty more than community need.
Citizens are right to be frustrated, but now they are also clear about what must change.
First, union parishad committees need to be revived with real representation. Youth, women, minorities, and people with disabilities must have a seat at the table.
Limiting committee tenure to two years and publicly disclosing committee members’ roles would help weaken entrenched patronage networks that have suffocated the people to date.
Second, reintroducing student councils in schools and colleges could institutionalize youth participation in governance.
These councils would not be merely symbolic; the elected student representatives could sit on union parishad committees, monitor service delivery, and bridge the gap between citizens and local officials.
This might sound fictitious, but it is already happening informally. In Kumira, for example, students stepped in to stop political interference in food ration distributions. With the right structures, this kind of accountability can become the norm rather than the exception.
Third, closing the information gap is essential. People cannot demand accountability if they do not know what resources exist.
Here, Bangladesh’s youth, with technological experiences, can take the lead by developing easy-to-use platforms to share information on union parishad budgets and services. But offline methods must also remain.
A hybrid approach combining digital platforms led by young people with traditional methods such as miking and door-to-door communication can ensure that everyone, from elderly villagers to digitally savvy youth, is well informed.
Finally, structural reforms are overdue.
To begin with, union parishad elections must be depoliticized by removing party symbols. Neutral oversight mechanisms and independent audits are critical to prevent local power from being monopolized.
If elections remain captured by partisan influence, then corruption at the grassroots will continue unchecked. Without depoliticizing local governance, transparency will remain elusive.
Bangladesh’s youth are already showing that they can be powerful agents of change, but they cannot do it alone. Reforming union parishads requires political will, civil society engagement, and above all, a commitment to make governance transparent, inclusive, and fair.
This is not about idealism. It is about the survival of democracy at the grassroots. Right now, too many citizens see their union parishads not as partners but as gatekeepers who withhold rights unless bribes are paid or loyalties are pledged.
If we continue with dysfunctional committees, politicized elections, and opaque service delivery, union parishads will remain symbols of exclusion rather than empowerment.
If reformed with inclusivity, transparency, and accountability, union parishads could rebuild trust in governance and empower citizens to take ownership of their future.
For Bangladesh’s democratic renewal to be real, the change must begin with the institutions closest to the people. The choice before us is here, and the time to act is now.
Zarif Bin Islam is a Senior Programme Associate at BIGD, BRAC University. The views expressed in this article are the author's own.