Institutions should not be so dependent on the PM for routine governance

Over the past few months, a phrase once quite common has again entered Bangladesh’s official communication: “following the prime minister’s order.” This week alone, this phrase popped up on several occasions: for instance, when a telephone call from Prime Minister Tarique Rahman helped change the location of a waterlogged HSC exam centre in Cumilla; when four tourists stranded on Bandarban’s hills due to heavy rain and flash flood were brought to safety by the Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) following his directive; when the removal of years-old garbage dump along the Dhaka-Aricha highway was initiated following his instruction; when his directive led to the nationalisation of a remote secondary school in Bandarban; and when the Dhaka district administration stocked up on flood relief following his instruction.

Viewed individually, these are all welcome decisions. The prime minister deserves credit for conveying a clear message about his government’s priorities. But the repeated use of the above-mentioned phrase raises a broader question, not about the prime minister himself but about public institutions’ ability to perform their responsibilities without his intervention.

Tap Here to Add The Daily Star As A Trusted Source

That question, however, cannot be separated from the country’s political history. Fifteen and a half years of centralised governance under Sheikh Hasina, in particular, reshaped how the state functioned. Officials became accustomed to looking upwards before making decisions, often preferring to wait for signals from the very top rather than properly exercising the authority already vested in them. That administrative culture did not disappear in the aftermath of the July uprising in 2024, nor did the following 18 months of interim regime under Prof Muhammad Yunus fundamentally transform the bureaucracy. The current government inherited institutions whose habits were formed over many years.

There are understandable reasons why highlighting the prime minister’s instructions can be useful. Bureaucracies often respond not just to formal directives but also to the messages conveyed through public communication. When the officials frequently see law enforcement, environmental protection, fiscal discipline and/or public welfare receiving the prime minister’s attention, many are likely to align their own work accordingly without requiring explicit instructions in every instance.

Another important distinction must be noted: the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) oversees two key divisions as well as a number of institutes and agencies, including National Security Intelligence (NSI), NGO Affairs Bureau, Bangladesh Investment Development Authority (BIDA), Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA), Special Security Force (SSF), and Bangladesh Economic Zones Authority (BEZA). The PMO’s charter also includes matters relating to the prime minister’s commitments and directives. Describing the work of these bodies as following the prime minister’s instructions is an accurate account of the chain of command, not a symptom of excessive centralisation.

But the instances that animate concern belong to an entirely different category. Take, for example, the Ramisa rape and murder case. Faced with nationwide outrage, the prime minister’s intervention to ensure a speedy trial sent an unmistakable message that justice could not be delayed. Still, the way the episode was communicated left many with the impression that the system moved decisively only after the country’s highest office got involved in the process, suggesting that such urgency may not have been possible otherwise. That perception, even if unintended, raises questions about whether institutions are capable of responding with a similar exigency on their own.

The same question applies to last month’s decision to reject a proposal for Chittagong City Corporation officials to visit the US to observe mosquito control measures. The PMO was the competent authority to decide the fate of such a proposal, and rejecting unnecessary expenditure is certainly a wise call. However, framing and publicising the PMO’s routine administrative decisions as personal intervention of the prime minister risk reinforcing the perception that effective governance depends on the direct involvement of one individual. Over time, that risks obscuring the role of institutions, even when those are functioning exactly as they are supposed to.

Fortunately, the prime minister himself reportedly seems to be uncomfortable with all the praise and credit directed at him. But so far, the expression of his discomfort has barely yielded any outcome. For example, in April, as the health minister repeatedly praised Tarique Rahman in his speech at a conference, the prime minister, who was present as chief guest, interjected and asked him to tone the praise down a little. At a more recent event, when the health minister proceeded to share a recent interaction between Rahman and the cabinet, he interrupted the minister, saying he “should not have brought up that issue.”

So, there should be a fine line that deserves careful attention. The message should be that the prime minister is setting priorities, and never that institutions function only because he personally intervenes. The latter would accurately reflect neither the prime minister’s responsibilities nor the authority already vested in the ministries, local governments, regulators and law enforcement agencies. More importantly, it might reinforce the very administrative culture Bangladesh is trying to break out of. Routine governance should be seen as the normal functions of institutions rather than the result of exceptional intervention. Police should investigate crimes because it is their duty. Ministries should implement policies because that is their job responsibility. Local governments should exercise powers they already possess. While the leader of the nation’s role is to define priorities and provide leadership, institutions should become more capable of translating that vision into action on their own.

None of this is intended as criticism of the government, which came to power just five months ago. It is a suggestion offered in support of what the people of the country expect this government to accomplish. The current administration has inherited enormous structural challenges, and rebuilding institutions was never going to happen within a few months. But obvious changes must become gradually visible if the country is to move decisively away from the culture of excessive centralisation that defined the previous era. As institutions regain confidence and officials increasingly exercise the authority already entrusted to them, the phrase “following the prime minister’s order” should naturally become obsolete.

That would not indicate a less active prime minister. Instead, it would indicate something far more significant: that his government has succeeded in rebuilding a state where institutions carry forward the priorities of the country’s elected leadership with confidence, professionalism and independence. That would be one of the clearest signs that Bangladesh has truly begun to leave its old administrative culture behind.

Jannatul Naym Pieal is a writer, researcher, and journalist. He can be reached at jn.pieal@gmail.com.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own. 

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.