Where does Bangladesh’s bureaucracy stand on the scale of ethical standards?

In 1994, following a financial scandal in the lower house of the British Parliament, the prime minister at the time, John Major, formed a committee to establish “standards of conduct in public life.” Led by Lord Nolan, the committee presented in its first report the “Seven Principles of Public Life,” designed as ethical guidelines for those engaged in public service.

Lord Nolan described these principles as the foundation of integrity, responsibility, and transparency in public life, so that those involved in public service could embody these values in their conduct. The seven principles are: integrity, honesty, objectivity, accountability, selflessness, openness, and leadership.

These principles have since served as the basis of administrative ethics education in many countries around the world.

In Bangladesh, too, Nolan Committee’s principles have been discussed from time to time, although, unlike in the UK, they have not been formally adopted. Even so, their influence is evident in various policy frameworks, such as the National Integrity Strategy, the Right to Information Act, and policies on anti-corruption and good governance.

These principles were meant to help build a foundation of ethics, transparency and accountability within Bangladesh’s administration and bureaucracy. Yet in practice, the reality is quite different. Political interference, party-based appointments, and moral laxity have deeply undermined the administrative structure. A review of Bangladesh’s bureaucracy through the lens of Nolan’s seven principles reveals how a service-oriented administration has gradually transformed into a power-centered and self-serving system.

The core administrative structure, or bureaucracy, of Bangladesh is the main driving force of state governance. But to what extent is this structure devoted to public interest? While many countries across the world have embraced Nolan’s seven principles of ethical public service as part of reform and modernisation, how much of that spirit has taken root in Bangladesh?

Bangladesh’s bureaucracy is rooted in the colonial era. The purpose of the British administration was not public service but the preservation of power through rule and control. This centralised and authoritarian administrative pattern continued during the Pakistan period.

After independence, the state structure changed, but the basic character of the administration did not. The rulers changed, but the mode of governance remained largely the same. Consequently, the ethos of public service was replaced by a culture of loyalty to power and political influence. Added to this were partisan influence, promotions based on allegiance, and a bureaucratic rigidity dominated by file-bound procedures.

The first two Nolan principles - integrity and honesty - symbolise fairness, accountability and moral courage in public service. Yet Bangladesh’s administrative reality portrays almost the opposite picture.

For example, despite serious allegations of amassing vast illegal wealth, former Inspector General of Police Benazir Ahmed received multiple state awards and promotions during his career. Even though he was accused of using his public position for business interests and illicit enrichment, the administration took no effective action against him. In 2020–21, he even received the National Integrity Award for his supposed virtues, including honesty.

In stark contrast, the case of Anti-Corruption Commission officer Sharif Uddin tells a different story. He was dismissed from his job without explanation after investigating irregularities and corruption in several government projects. Recently, the court declared his dismissal unlawful and ordered his reinstatement. Still, his case remains a stark example of what happens to honest officers in our bureaucracy.

These two opposite cases show that in Bangladesh, integrity and ethics are not only ignored but have been systematically weakened. The corrupt are rewarded, while officials who show moral courage are punished. As a result, an environment has developed in the administration where loyalty and compromise are seen as safer paths than honesty.

Crisis of impartiality, decline of professionalism through partisan loyalty
Nolan’s third principle is impartiality. This involves conducting oneself based on merit and fairness, irrespective of political affiliation. In Bangladesh’s administrative reality today, this principle is nearly extinct.

During the fallen Awami League government, the bureaucracy gradually turned into a structure built on partisan loyalty, where promotions and privileges for officials were determined largely by their political allegiance.
In particular, during the rigged 2024 election, numerous reports in the media alleged that many administrative officials openly acted to serve the interests of the ruling party, assisting its candidates in the electoral process. On the other hand, officials with different political views or those who tried to remain neutral faced exclusion, transfers, or even administrative harassment.

As a result, the bureaucracy has slowly transformed into a loyalty-based structure, where professional competence no longer determines success, political proximity does. This stands in direct contradiction to Nolan’s principle of impartiality.

The broken framework of accountability and collective decline
Nolan’s fourth principle, accountability, has become almost meaningless in the administrative reality of Bangladesh today. Most oversight bodies are trapped in webs of nepotism and corrupt syndicates. As a result, internal accountability mechanisms have become ineffective in taking action against dishonest officials. External watchdogs, such as the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), have likewise failed to play any meaningful role.

While punitive measures are sometimes taken against relatively powerless employees, no visible action is seen against influential individuals or groups. There are countless examples where specific allegations against powerful figures have gone unaddressed.

The absence of independent accountability institutions, such as the office of an ombudsman, has further exposed our collective failure to ensure administrative transparency. Consequently, instead of fostering responsibility, the culture of unrestrained corruption has become deeply entrenched in the bureaucracy.

One of Nolan’s core principles is selflessness, that personal or political interests must not influence the discharge of public duties. Yet this principle is almost absent in Bangladesh’s bureaucracy.
At the beginning of 2025, the interim government promoted 550 officials to supernumerary or additional positions, many times higher than the number of approved vacancies. According to analysts, these promotions were driven more by political loyalty or personal connections than by merit.

This has disrupted administrative discipline and raised serious concerns about efficiency and fairness. As a result, the motivation for many officials has shifted from serving the public interest to simply securing their own position.

The crisis of transparency and leadership under political patronage
Two of Nolan’s fundamental values, transparency and leadership, are now under severe strain within Bangladesh’s bureaucracy. Transparency means that administrative decisions should be made through open processes, with accountability, and in the public interest.

In reality, however, political influence and internal patronage often make administrative decisions opaque. A glaring example was the move in 2024 to appoint a government official accused in a Cox’s Bazar land acquisition corruption case as a director of the Anti-Corruption Commission.

Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) described this as a clear violation of administrative transparency and ethical leadership.
When those facing allegations themselves occupy key positions, the moral foundation of leadership collapses. Leadership then ceases to represent responsibility and integrity, becoming instead a display of loyalty to those in power. This weakens transparency and entrenches a culture of group-based allegiance rather than genuine leadership.

Moreover, though the Right to Information Act of 2009 grants citizens constitutional right to access administrative information, most government offices use secrecy as a protective shield. As a result, where transparency of decisions and expenditures should be a prerequisite for democracy, the principle of secrecy is instead being used as a defense mechanism to protect political and bureaucratic interests.

Building a culture of ethics within Bangladesh’s bureaucracy requires more than laws or policy directives. It demands practical and structural reform.
First, ethics and public service values must form the core of administrative training. Currently, institutions such as the Bangladesh Public Administration Training Centre (BPATC) and the Public Service Academy emphasize laws, regulations, and administrative procedures, but give little attention to ethical decision-making.

In the UK, civil service training includes a mandatory Ethical Leadership module, where officials discuss real-life moral dilemmas, such as how to uphold correct decisions under political pressure. Similarly, South Korea’s Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC) organises regular ethics workshops for public officials, institutionalising lessons in personal integrity, public interest, and ethical leadership.

If similar training initiatives were introduced in Bangladesh, it could gradually help reshape the mindset of bureaucrats toward integrity-driven and service-oriented governance.

Second, transparency and accountability must be strengthened through institutional reforms. Officials should be evaluated based on integrity, efficiency, and public service standards, removing political influence from promotions, transfers, and performance assessments. Singapore’s civil service can serve as an example, where despite high salaries, every decision is transparent, and a strict “zero tolerance” policy against corruption is effectively enforced.

Through the implementation of Whistleblower Protection Laws, officials can be encouraged to safely report misconduct, as has been done in South Korea and the United States. At the same time, launching e-governance and open data platforms can ensure citizen access to information and participation. India’s RTI Online and Estonia’s e-government model are successful examples of this approach.

Finally, if senior officials set an example of transparency and ethical leadership in their own conduct, it will inspire employees at lower levels. Transforming the culture of ethics is time-consuming, but without it, rebuilding the credibility of the administration is impossible.
Returning to the path of ethics

Bangladesh’s administration is competent, but most of this competence is used to follow orders rather than serve the public. Nolan’s seven principles remind us that public service is not just about obeying instructions, but about acting with conscience. If the British administration can restructure itself through the implementation of Nolan’s principles, Bangladesh can do the same. For this, an ethical administrative framework is required, one where integrity outweighs power, responsibility outweighs loyalty, and justice outweighs fear.

To return the bureaucracy to public service, we must prioritise practical behaviour and culture over paper rules. Ethics cannot be imposed by law alone; it must be cultivated through the example of leadership, citizen demands, and the administration’s own sincerity.

* Nurul Huda Sakib is Professor, Department of Government and Politics, Jahangirnagar University

* Mohammad Mahfuzur Rahman is an independent researcher and former student, Jahangirnagar University

* The views expressed here are those of the authors.