Prothom Alo :
If you were to assess the current state of corruption in Bangladesh, what would you say?
Iftekharuzzaman: The state of corruption in Bangladesh is alarming. The scale and depth of corruption reached the alarming level due to a long-standing process. The student-peoples'' mass uprising opened a window of an unprecedented opportunity for change. However, compared to the expectations, the actual progress remains very low.
Several factors are at play here. First, we must remember that authoritarianism flourished in Bangladesh primarily through corruption. To protect this abuse of power, every institution was politicised, "captured," and rendered dysfunctional—effectively brought under the government's thumb to serve its interests and suppress the opposition.
Consequently, whether corruption can be controlled depends on how effectively we can "de-kleptify" a state structure that was essentially a kleptocracy. This is a long-term process requiring strategic initiatives and, above all, the highest level of political will. It requires those in power—now and in the future—to demonstrate their integrity through action.
Prothom Alo :
Which sectors do you think are the most corrupt?
Dr. Iftekharuzzaman: There is no sector in Bangladesh where corruption does not occur. So, at this stage, we cannot say exactly which sector is the worst. We are currently conducting field research and surveys, and we will publish the results soon. However, in our regular surveys, the sectors that consistently emerge as the most corrupt include law enforcement agencies, various areas of the administration, service sectors, and even the judicial services.
In other words, the sectors that are entrusted with controlling corruption are themselves the ones where corruption is most widespread and deep. As a result, corruption then spreads to other sectors.
Do you think that there is no change in the system?
Iftekharuzzaman: In his first address to the nation, the Chief Advisor promised that the asset declarations of himself and the members of the advisory council would be made public. He also mentioned collecting asset declarations from all government officials. To date, that promise has not been kept.
If the government had set this example, it would have been a significant step forward. By failing to do so, they have inadvertently encouraged those who have resisted transparency for years. It misses the chance to set a precedent that would be difficult for future governments to overturn. Publicly exposing the assets of those in high-ranking political and governmental positions is a globally recognised tool for controlling corruption, yet it remains absent in our country.
Furthermore, many major state decisions and international contracts are being made exclusively by the interim government in a non-participatory manner, without involving stakeholders and often in secrecy. We didn''t even see this level of "culture of secrecy" during political governments. Whether it''s port deals or international tariff agreements, the public has a right to know the terms, as they are the ones who will ultimately bear the benefits or the burdens.
Prothom Alo :
How do you view the interim government's reform initiatives?
Iftekharuzzaman: Regarding state reforms, while the interim government has taken important steps by forming several reform commissions (for the judiciary, state reform, and elections), our observations show that progress has largely stalled at the reporting stage. While many recommendations from these commissions could have been implemented through ordinances or government decisions, substantial headway has not been made.
On the other hand, as I said, the core of the movement against authoritarianism was a movement against corruption, in favour of good governance and an accountable system of goverment. The question is: among the forces that emerged victorious in the political arena or within the government bureaucracy, what have we actually seen?
What we have seen is that from the afternoon of 5 August onward, there has been rampant party favouritism, grabbing of positions and property, extortion, and “case business,” “arrest business,” and “bail business.” Across the country, in the political and governance ecosystem, after the fall of one power, other forces became desperate to take over. This party-based grabbing, extortion, and corruption clearly shows how deeply and extensively corruption in Bangladesh is intertwined with politics.
And the bureaucracy has been added to this. We often discuss concerns about mob rule. In other countries, mob-based breakdowns of good governance and accountability, mob terror and mob violence are seen mainly on the streets. But in Bangladesh, this has first developed not only on the streets but at the very center of the administration—inside the Bangladesh Secretariat itself—where such incidents have been happening repeatedly since 9 August 2024.
And this has been reflected across the country in appointments, promotions, and transfers within the bureaucracy—“we were out for a day, now it’s our turn.” Those who were victimised must of course be properly reinstated in their rightful positions or given fair appointments. But the way party favouritism, grabbing of posts, and even mob pressure have taken place in the Secretariat and nationwide is, in practice, a clear example of the deep, intertwined relationship between politics and bureaucratic corruption and abuse of power. We are seeing this very widely.
So, from another angle—the third part of my answer to your question—is that this interim government took office with the aim of setting some examples. It was supposed to take initiatives for state reform, create a legal framework, and at the same time establish certain practices in governing the state that would serve as good precedents for the future. But the interim government fails to do it.
How do you view the reforms of the Anti-Corruption Commssion?
Iftekharuzzaman: Among the many recommendations of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) Reform Commission, one example I can give is this: no steps were taken to implement the recommendations aimed at freeing the ACC from the grip of the bureaucracy. On the other hand, although the ACC is supposed to be an anti-corruption body, there are corrupt individuals inside the ACC itself—officials and staff who are responsible for investigation and inquiry. A significant portion of them are corrupt, and the ACC itself has evidence of this. As part of the process of preparing the Reform Commission’s report, we were able to validate that information.
Based on that, we made specific proposals that those against whom allegations exist must be removed and handed over to the courts, and we even laid out the procedures for doing so. But the ACC has taken no action in this regard.
Specifically, regarding the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) reform, only a few "hand-picked" or ad-hoc changes were made through ordinances. Strategic issues remain unchanged. Our research shows that due to the government being held "hostage" by the bureaucracy, fundamental issues were bypassed. The government failed to build institutional capacity, and the ACC itself failed to reform from within.
Prothom Alo :
What will be the biggest challenges for the next elected government in tackling corruption?
Iftekharuzzaman: First, the government that comes to power will obviously depend on the election results and on what kind of Parliament we get. Because first there is Parliament, then the government—and there is a mutual relationship between Parliament and the government from the perspective of controlling corruption and ensuring good governance.
What I see is this: in Bangladesh, the pattern that has existed for a long time in politics and governance—what we might call the political and governance ecosystem—was expected to change as a result of the blood-stained movement against authoritarianism. It was hoped that what would change was the political “capital” based on money, muscle, religion, patriarchy, and majoritarianism.
In essence, what I mean is this: the “capital” of our politics is supposed to be the public interest. Politics should produce the public interest, and to produce that, it needs capital. But the capital being used is money, muscle, and religion.
Politics is meant to ensure the public interest. The “product” of politics is the public interest—why do people do politics? To deliver public interest, right? But like any other form of production, this has its own factors of production. What are the factors of production here? They are money, muscle, and religion.
Religion—political religion—whose influence we can clearly see everywhere. This is not new; it existed before as well. Money and muscle were always there, and religion too. But the influence of religion has increased comparatively. And I am not talking only about religious-based political parties. More broadly, the use of religion in politics—and the way it is used—can now be seen not only among religious parties but also among mainstream political parties.
So, this will be reflected in practice. But the Parliament we are going to have—how much it can establish an accountable system of government and fulfill the related expectations—will depend on the character of that Parliament once it is formed.
I bring up Parliament when answering the question about the biggest challenges for the new government in tackling corruption because, naturally, most people consider the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) to be the primary institution for controlling corruption. That is absolutely true—it has clearly defined legal responsibilities. But “legal” alone is not enough; the ACC cannot function effectively outside the broader political and governance ecosystem. And this is where the role of the national Parliament becomes crucial. Parliament is number one on the list of institutions that can contribute to preventing corruption.
If the Parliament is not capable of producing public interest—if it cannot act in a way that ensures the public interest—then those in power who use money, muscle, and religion as their “capital” to extract personal gains will make it very difficult for the public to benefit.
If the new Parliament is formed in a way that respects the July Charter and implements its proposals in practice, then there is a real possibility that, compared to past Parliaments in Bangladesh, there will be an opportunity to establish a somewhat more accountable system of government.
The three basic functions of Parliament—law-making, debating and discussing issues in the public interest, and holding the government accountable to the people, which is one of the key elements in preventing corruption—have a much brighter prospect than before. In other words, the potential for these roles to be fulfilled is now far stronger.
For example, if I say that the Deputy Speaker must be elected from the opposition and that there will be only one Deputy Speaker. That is a good thing. It has long been expected and it should happen. Whether it will actually happen is something we will have to see. Among the parliamentary committees, five of the most important ones will be chaired by members of the opposition. There are several positive aspects like this, which should create an opportunity for Parliament to play its role in holding the government accountable to the people on behalf of the people.
So, it’s a good thing, it’s a good possibility. But to what extent this will actually happen will depend, as I said, on Parliament as a reflection of the political governance ecosystem.
That is one aspect. The second is that if we look directly at the government that will come to power, their biggest challenge in preventing corruption will be how seriously they review the proposals of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) Reform Commission.
As I said earlier, almost all the active political parties that are contesting the election have accepted nearly 100 per cent of those proposals. Since those proposals have not yet been implemented, the real question is how far they will go in examining them and how far they will move toward actual implementation. In reality, how much the new government contributes to ACC reform—and to curbing corruption overall—will depend on that.
So far, in the political manifestos that have been published and in what they are saying on the campaign trail, almost everyone is loudly pledging to fight corruption to win votes. But after winning votes with anti-corruption slogans, how much corruption they actually control—and whether they use the power they gain to serve the public or to profit from the muscle, money, and religion they invested in the campaign—will determine how sincere and committed the government truly is in tackling corruption and setting real examples.
There are many things we have called for. After a new government is formed, one of the key things we will demand—and I would call this a major challenge—is the formulation of a National Anti-Corruption Strategy. This strategy should define the anti-corruption roles of political parties, government bodies, state institutions, the Anti-Corruption Commission, and non-state actors. It should clearly set out what each of them is responsible for.
There should also be an Office of the Ombudsman to monitor how well these roles are being carried out. We have proposed this, and there is even a constitutional obligation and commitment in this regard. Because if we think that corruption can be controlled by relying only on the ACC while allowing all other institutions to be run in corrupt ways, that simply will not work.
That is why I believe the first responsibility is to formulate this strategy and then take action accordingly. Who will do this? The government should take the initiative and make it possible through an independent expert group. That is what we have proposed.
Next, the proposals of the ACC Reform Commission related to the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) that the interim government failed to implement, or left partially unaddressed, must be carefully reviewed. After examining them, the government must thoroughly implement the ACC Reform Commission’s recommendations to ensure the ACC’s full independence and accountability. That is the second point.
Third, in Bangladesh there is no clear legal framework for managing conflicts of interest. We have always seen that when people are in power, they use the authority they have to make decisions in ways that serve their own interests. This was also seen during the interim government. Various government decisions were taken to benefit those who made the decisions themselves. This is what is called a conflict of interest.
We believe it is absolutely essential to create a proper legal basis for conflict-of-interest management and to implement it. Right now, there are only bits and pieces—some clauses and provisions here and there—but there is no real enforcement, no effective implementation, and no monitoring. This must be ensured. A proper conflict-of-interest management law must be enacted.
What are your recommendations in tackling corruption?
Iftekharuzzaman: If the next parliament is formed following the principles of the "July Charter," there is a possibility for a more accountable government. Parliament has three core roles: making laws, debating public interests, and holding the government accountable. If the parliament functions correctly—for example, by ensuring the Deputy Speaker and chairs of key committees come from the opposition—the chances of preventing corruption will improve.
I believe duties for the next government will be:
1. A National Anti-Corruption Strategy: Formulating a strategy that defines the anti-corruption roles of all state and political institutions, overseen by an independent Ombudsman. We cannot rely on the ACC alone while other institutions remain corrupt.
2. Full ACC Reform: Implementing the recommendations the interim government failed to act on to ensure the ACC’s complete independence and accountability.
3. Conflict of Interest Law: We currently lack a legal framework for managing conflicts of interest. We often see officials making decisions that serve their personal interests. A specific law must be enacted and enforced to monitor and prevent this.
# Rabiul Islam is a journalist at Prothom Alo.
*He can be reached at [email protected]