The dwindling presence of lawyers in the Bangladesh Parliament has evolved from a mere statistical observation into a profound structural crisis.
While the number of lawyer candidates saw a marginal increase in recent elections, the evolving character of Parliament, economic realities of the electoral system, and nomination processes of political parties have effectively narrowed the doors of national politics for legal professionals.
Lawmakers have been increasingly prioritising local development, appointments, and administrative influence over their primary role of legislation. This shift has directly impacted the professional composition of Parliament, where the traditional influence of lawyers is being replaced by the dominance of businessmen.
Experts warn that this structural deviation is not only disrupting balance but is also contributing to political violence, local-level terrorism, and administrative fragility.
Shift from legislation to local influence
According to analysts, as Parliament moved away from its core responsibility of law-making to focus on development and power-centric activities, wealthy interest groups and businessmen naturally gained dominance.
Consequently, lawyers – who are professionally trained and experienced in legal scrutiny – are being pushed out of the competitive arena.
Legal practitioners argue that an electoral culture requiring millions in expenditure, a permanent local presence, and reliance on muscle power has made it nearly impossible for professional lawyers to contest elections.
This trend has significantly weakened the legislative capacity of the House. With fewer representatives who understand the nuances of the law, critical legislation is often passed without adequate debate, a development described as alarming for democracy and the rule of law.
Experts suggest that if the functions of Parliament were restricted solely to law-making, without involvement in administrative or development work, the character of the institution would transform, naturally attracting more lawyers and principled politicians.
In such a scenario, being an MP would be a demanding role in statecraft and policymaking rather than a pursuit of personal gain or power.
Dominance of business interests
Statistical analyses of various elections highlight this shift. In the 13th National Parliament, the proportion of lawyer candidates was only 11.56 percent, while businessmen accounted for 48.48 percent.
This trend has been consistent – in the 2008 Ninth General Election, businessmen made up 47.83 percent of candidates. This figure rose to 56.91 percent in 2014, stood at 51.20 percent in 2018, and reached 57.67 percent in the 2024 Twelfth General Election.
Conversely, the percentage of lawyer candidates dropped from 9.60 percent in the 11th election to 9.40 percent in the 12th.
Advocate Subrata Chowdhury, acting president of Gano Forum, told the TIMES that the current environment limits election participation to the financially capable, excluding low-income and other professional groups.
He noted that instead of focusing on legal reforms, MPs often spend their time discussing local issues that should fall under the jurisdiction of local government.
He emphasised that MPs are tasked with reviewing and amending all laws of the country, but a major gap has emerged in this responsibility. He called for political parties to nominate more lawyers and urged civil society to play a more active role.
Senior Advocate Manzil Murshid informed the Times that lawyers held a larger presence in Parliament following independence because the institution was strictly viewed as a place for law-making.
However, once the focus shifted to development work, the balance broke. He remarked that businessmen, whose primary motive is profit, have turned law-making into a structure for gain.
He argued that the most significant reform needed is to return Parliament exclusively to its law-making roots and end MP intervention in local schools, colleges, and development projects.
A crisis of governance and expertise
Election law expert Advocate Mohsin Rashid told the Times that as a law-making body, the legislature should ideally have a majority of lawyers.
He questioned the role of businessmen in such an institution, suggesting they focus on personal business interests rather than legal drafting, which leads to legislative loopholes.
He illustrated how legal expertise can solve systemic issues, such as reducing the prison population and case costs by allowing defendants in bailable cases to remain free during trial—a solution a lawyer is more likely to devise than someone from another profession.
Advocate Mohsin Rashid proposed that at least 30 percent of nominations should be legally reserved for lawyers and that MPs must be restricted from development activities.
Similarly, former Additional Attorney General MK Rahman told the Times that elections have become dependent on “illegal money,” with many businessmen using unpaid bank loans and black money to fund their campaigns.
He noted that lawyers, who generally attempt to stay within legal frameworks, cannot survive in this “politicisation of criminalisation.”
Advocate Yarul Islam, secretary general of Bangladesh Congress and a candidate for Satkhira-1, observed that some voters are reluctant to support lawyers because they prefer representatives who might allow the path of corruption to remain open for personal favours.
He lamented that approximately 90 percent of current MPs do not understand the laws they pass, often merely “thumping tables” to approve drafts prepared by bureaucrats without reading or analysing them.
Despite the opportunities for reform following the July Revolution, analysts believe the interim government has intentionally ignored the issue of reinstating Parliament as an exclusive law-making body.
Consequently, the influence of businessmen and vested interest groups remains entrenched, and the position of MP continues to be viewed primarily as a tool for influence and personal profit.
