Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) has accused the interim government of effectively surrendering to the bureaucracy, arguing that reform initiatives taken in the name of institutional change have largely failed at the implementation stage due to weak political resolve and entrenched bureaucratic resistance.
The allegations were made at a press conference titled “Reform Aversion in the Interim Government’s Policy Formulation”, held on Monday at TIB’s Dhanmondi office, where the organisation presented its assessment of eight ordinances enacted by the interim government as part of its reform agenda.
Speaking at the event, TIB Executive Director Dr Iftekharuzzaman said that although reform initiatives were announced with high expectations, they have missed their objectives in almost every case.
“Whatever initiatives have been taken in the name of reform have largely gone off track during implementation. In effect, the interim government has surrendered to the bureaucracy,” he said.
“The key question is why this surrender occurred and where the weaknesses lie. However, since I do not have direct experience of how decisions are made within the government, I cannot give a definitive answer.”
Ordinances under scrutiny
TIB’s observations focused on the following ordinances:
Anti-Corruption Commission (Amendment) Ordinance
Police Commission Ordinance
National Human Rights Commission Ordinance
Government Audit Ordinance
Revenue Policy and Revenue Management Ordinance
Cyber Security Ordinance
Personal Data Protection Ordinance
National Data Management Ordinance
According to TIB, the formulation and content of these ordinances reveal deep structural problems in the government’s approach to reform.
Lack of strategy and selective reform
In its overall assessment, TIB noted that there is no evidence of a clear or coherent strategy in selecting sectors or institutions for reform.
While 11 commissions and committees were formed, several nationally critical sectors—such as education, agriculture, private enterprise and labour—were excluded without explanation.
TIB further observed that, apart from the decision to hold a referendum, no concrete roadmap was developed to implement the recommendations of the reform commissions.
From the outset, the government also failed to identify or counter reform-resistant groups.
“As a result of surrendering to these anti-reform forces, many important recommendations were dropped, several reform-inconsistent decisions were taken, and even the July Charter was violated without justification, setting a negative precedent,” the report stated.
This, TIB said, has led to the adoption of comparatively less significant reforms, and in some cases, laws and decisions that run counter to the stated reform agenda.
No visible progress on key recommendations
TIB noted that, with only a few exceptions, there has been no visible progress in implementing the immediately actionable recommendations of the reform commissions.
At the same time, there is no implementation plan for recommendations related to media reform, healthcare, women’s affairs, labour, local government, or the white paper on the country’s economic condition.
One-sided lawmaking, limited transparency
The organisation also criticised the government for drafting most ordinances unilaterally, without meaningful consultation with stakeholders.
In some cases, draft ordinances were uploaded to official websites for very short periods, which TIB described as “tokenistic” public consultation aimed at avoiding responsibility rather than encouraging participation. In other instances, stakeholders were allegedly sidelined or even subjected to smear campaigns.
TIB concluded that the government has failed to set an example of transparency or proactive disclosure of information in lawmaking and decisions affecting public interest.
Bureaucratic dominance undermining reform
Citing examples of what it described as capitulation to bureaucratic interests, TIB said that—with the exception of ordinances related to judicial separation and foreign donations to NGOs—most reform efforts were derailed due to sabotage by influential sections of the bureaucracy.
According to the organisation, the Anti-Corruption Commission, Police Commission, National Human Rights Commission, Cyber Security, Personal Data Protection and National Data Management ordinances all preserve opportunities for unchecked authority and lack of accountability, prioritising bureaucratic and executive control over national interest.
Police commission ‘reduced to a façade’
TIB’s assessment stated that the way the Police Commission Ordinance was drafted has effectively destroyed the prospect of an independent police commission.
“The ordinance contains several provisions that would turn the so-called police commission into nothing more than a refuge for retired administrative and police officials, allowing the continued abuse of power,” the report said.
“In practice, it risks becoming an institution that shields, rather than prevents, police misconduct.”
Human rights commission falls short of international standards
Regarding the National Human Rights Commission Ordinance, TIB said it could have met international standards if the national and international stakeholders involved in drafting the initial version had not been excluded through a covert and bureaucratically driven process.
Instead, the final version creates “overwhelming scope for bureaucratic control,” undermining the commission’s independence, the organisation said.
Surveillance concerns persist
While acknowledging that the Cyber Security, Personal Data Protection and National Data Management ordinances contain some positive and modern provisions, TIB warned that they still allow for the continuation of a surveillance-based governance model reminiscent of authoritarian rule.
ACC reform recommendations ignored
TIB also alleged that key short-term recommendations of the Anti-Corruption Commission Reform Commission were deliberately excluded.
According to the organisation, the ordinance was prepared under the exclusive control of the ACC and the bureaucracy, without engaging other stakeholders, thereby omitting provisions necessary to ensure both full independence and accountability of the commission.
TIB pointed out that there were no dissenting opinions from the ACC leadership in the reform commission’s report, nor were there any notes of dissent from political parties on ACC reform in the July Charter—raising questions about why crucial recommendations were dropped.
Who really makes decisions?
Based on observations over the past year and a half, Dr Iftekharuzzaman said that although bodies such as the advisory council or cabinet formally exist, operational decisions are not made there.
“Which document will be signed, which decision will be implemented, which clauses or dates will be included or removed—these are not finalised by the advisory council,” he said.
“Such decisions are determined by a small number of extremely powerful individuals or groups within the state machinery.”
He added that these groups protect not only their own vested interests, but also political interests—and at times even the interests of segments of political opponents.
Corruption reform lacks commitment
Referring again to the ACC ordinance, Dr Iftekharuzzaman said there was no clear strategic commitment to making the institution effective.
“If the ACC becomes even slightly effective in real terms, it will directly put pressure on political and institutional corruption,” he said.
He further alleged that forces linked to political and administrative corruption are the ones resisting policy control, accountability and reform.
“Compared to advisers or ministers, a section of the administration exercises greater influence from behind the scenes,” he added.
Missed opportunity for reform consensus
Sharing his experience as a member of the National Consensus Commission, Dr Iftekharuzzaman said he had the opportunity to engage with the highest authorities during the early stages of forming the reform commissions.
“I firmly believe that the general public, the forces that participated in the movement and political parties all want reform. At the same time, there are opposing forces,” he said.
“But I saw no serious effort to map these challenges, analyse them or counter them.
Whether due to intent or incapacity, these critical questions were avoided—and what we are witnessing now is the result of that failure.”
The press conference was also attended by TIB Adviser–Executive Management Professor Dr Sumaiya Khair and Director Muhammad Badiuzzaman, among others.
