The inaugural session of Bangladesh’s 13th Parliament was widely anticipated as a defining moment – a return to democratic normalcy after a prolonged and turbulent period of political uncertainty.
The collapse of the Awami League government in August 2024 had sparked cautious optimism across the country.
Citizens from diverse political affiliations, ideological positions, and social backgrounds converged around a shared expectation: the restoration of a credible, representative government through a free, fair, and inclusive electoral process.
That expectation was eventually realized when the interim administration under Dr. Yunus was compelled to conduct parliamentary elections on 12 February.
The outcome – a decisive two-thirds majority for the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) – was widely interpreted as a reassertion of electoral legitimacy.
For many, it symbolized not just a political transition, but a broader restoration of democratic order after a contentious period marked by unelected governance, institutional ambiguities, widespread mob violence and the erosion of public trust.
Voters, in large numbers, placed their confidence in the new government with the hope that it would move beyond the controversial legacy of interim rule and respond meaningfully to the pressing concerns of ordinary citizens.
Yet, the proceedings of the first parliamentary session have left a significant segment of the population disillusioned.
A mandate without urgency
An overwhelming electoral mandate carries with it not only authority, but also a profound responsibility.
Parliament, as the central institution of democratic deliberation, is expected to function as a forum for serious, informed debate on issues that shape the nation’s future – its sovereignty, economic trajectory, governance structures, and public welfare.
Instead, the first session appeared marked more by what was left unsaid than by what was substantively addressed.
To be sure, there were strong rhetorical affirmations of the spirit of the Liberation War and calls for national unity These are important symbolic gestures that resonate deeply within Bangladesh’s political culture.
However, symbolism without substance risks becoming hollow. These declarations were not accompanied by a willingness to confront complex policy questions, scrutinize executive decisions, or engage in meaningful legislative oversight.
As a result, the session appeared curiously detached from the concerns, expectations, and day to day reality of the citizens it is meant to represent.
Silence on a controversial trade agreement
Perhaps the most striking omission was the absence of any meaningful discussion on the widely debated trade agreement with the United States.
Negotiated during the tenure of the interim government and finalized just three days before the election, the timing and process of this agreement have raised legitimate ethical and procedural concerns.
Within policy circles, economists, and the broader intelligentsia, there has been considerable unease about whether the terms of the agreement adequately protect Bangladesh’s long-term economic interests.
Questions have been raised about its potential implications for domestic industries, regulatory sovereignty, and the country’s strategic policy space in an increasingly competitive global economy.
Given the magnitude of these concerns, it would have been both appropriate and necessary for Parliament to undertake a comprehensive review.
Such deliberation would not only have enhanced transparency, but also reaffirmed Parliament’s constitutional role in scrutinizing executive decisions with far-reaching consequences.
Yet, Parliament – both the ruling party and the opposition – remained conspicuously silent. The lone exception was an attempt by an independent Member of Parliament, Barrister Rumeen Farhana, to initiate a discussion on the matter.
Her proposal, however, was not entertained. This reluctance to even open a preliminary debate raises troubling questions about the political will – across both treasury and opposition benches – to engage with sensitive but critical issues of national importance.
A public health crisis ignored
Even more concerning was Parliament’s failure to address a grave and ongoing public health emergency: a measles outbreak that has reportedly claimed the lives of over 300 children and infected tens of thousands more.
In a country where preventable diseases continue to pose significant risks, such an outbreak event should have triggered immediate national attention and institutional response. The death f so many young lives is not merely a health crisis – it is a human catastrophe that demands urgency, accountability, and compassion.
Public expectations were clear. Citizens anticipated a detailed parliamentary discussion examining the causes of the outbreak, the effectiveness of immunization programs, and the accountability of those responsible for public health management during the interim period.
There was a compelling case for forming an independent investigation commission to identify systemic failures and determine if negligence occurred during the health crisis. This body would recommend corrective measures and hold individuals accountable for failing to prevent the untimely deaths of hundreds of children.
Yet, across party lines, there was a deafening silence.
This omission is difficult to justify. Parliament is not only a law-making body; it is also the main platform through which the concerns of the most vulnerable are articulated. When it fails to address issues that involve life and death – particularly those affecting children – it risks undermining public confidence in democratic institutions themselves.
Misplaced priorities and ethical concerns
Equally disconcerting were the signals emanating from certain Members of Parliament regarding their priorities.
At a time when citizens are grappling with rising living costs, economic uncertainty, and employment concerns calls from some MPs for enhanced personal benefits – such as government-provided transport – appear profoundly disconnected from public sentiment.
These demands are especially contentious in light of the longstanding debate over duty-free car import privileges for MPs, which many citizens view as inequitable and inconsistent with the principles of fairness and austerity.
Rather than demonstrating restraint, such proposals reinforce perceptions of political entitlement and distance elected representatives from the people. It is even more troubling when the opposition leader supported such proposal who and whose Islamic party preach relentlessly the ethical aspects of governance.
The situation is further complicated by allegations – still requiring verification – of unethical practices in political mobilization, including the monetization of access and patronage networks.
Even if unproven, such claims highlight a broader concern: the need to uphold ethical standards in public life and to ensure that political processes remain transparent and accountable.
It is incumbent upon the government to address these perceptions with clarity and integrity.
Policy decisions – particularly those involving privileges for public officials – must be evaluated not only in fiscal terms, but also in light of the broader message they convey about governance, equity, and responsibility.
Institutional reform and missed opportunities
The first session also represented a missed opportunity to revisit longstanding questions of institutional reform, particularly in the sphere of local government.
The history of the Upazila system offers instructive lessons. Its abolition in 1991 by the BNP government was widely regarded by experts as a setback to decentralized governance. Some viewed it a monumental mistake made by the party.
Although reintroduced in 1996 by Awami League government, subsequent political interventions – such as assigning MPs advisory roles within Upazila Parishads – have often undermined the autonomy, efficiency, and accountability of local institutions.
Recent indications that the current government may further expand the role of MPs within the Upazila framework risk exacerbating these structural weaknesses.
The provision of office facilities and benefits for MPs within Upazila Parishads raises additional concerns about the blurring of institutional boundaries.
Effective local governance requires institutions that are empowered, accountable, and free from undue political interference. Reform efforts should therefore aim to strengthen – not dilute – the autonomy and functionality of local government structures.
The size and cost of government
Another issue warranting scrutiny is the apparent expansion in the size of the government. Reports suggest that the current administration may be among the largest in Bangladesh’s history, with an extensive array of ministers, state ministers, advisers, and special advisers.
At a time when fiscal discipline is of paramount importance, such expansion raises legitimate concerns. The country faces mounting economic pressures, including inflationary trends, external vulnerabilities, and increasing reliance on central bank financing.
Under these circumstances, a lean, efficient, and disciplined government would not only be economically prudent, but also politically responsible. The absence of a clear commitment to austerity within parliamentary discourse is therefore notable – and concerning.
Rebuilding public trust
The people have demonstrated their faith in democratic processes through active electoral participation and by endorsing a government with a strong mandate. However, that trust is not unconditional. It is contingent upon performance, responsiveness, and accountability.
The first session of the 13th Parliament has, unfortunately, fallen short of these expectations.
By avoiding critical debates, neglecting urgent national concerns, and appearing disconnected from the realities faced by citizens, it has missed a momentous opportunity to set a constructive and credible tone for the legislative term.
Yet, it is not too late to recalibrate.
Parliament must reclaim its role as the principal forum for national debate and policy deliberation. It must prioritize issues that directly impact citizens’ lives – public health, economic stability, governance reform, and institutional integrity.
It must also demonstrate the political courage to engage with complex, and at times uncomfortable, questions.
Above all, elected representatives must remember that their authority derives from public trust. That trust can only be sustained through actions that reflect the aspirations, concerns, rights and entitlements of the people they serve.
The nation expects – and deserves – nothing less.
The author is a former ambassador and secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
