Opinion
Accountability and impunity: Why public interest issues fade from public memory
A lack of accountability creates a culture of impunity, where public opinion gradually becomes numb despite repeated incidents, and forgetting turns into a normal social response. Umme Wara writes about why issues of public interest fade from public memory.
In our society, people often jokingly refer to our limited attention span as having a goldfish memory. It is commonly believed that a goldfish forgets everything every three seconds. I searched Google and found that the information is not entirely accurate. In reality, goldfish can retain memories for at least three months, and in some cases for several years. So why do we mock our own memory in this way?
One major reason is that in this extraordinary Bangladesh, incidents and crises occur constantly. As a result, even serious issues of public interest disappear from public memory shortly after sparking intense discussion, overwhelmed by countless new developments.
This tendency to forget important events collectively is known as “collective” or “social amnesia” (Russell Jacoby, Social Amnesia, 1975).
But this forgetfulness should not simply be viewed as the short-lived nature of public attention. Rather, it is part of a broader social and political process, one that can clearly be observed in contemporary Bangladesh.
American economist and political scientist Anthony Downs, in his 1972 theory of the “Issue Attention Cycle,” demonstrated how a particular public issue emerges into public consciousness, intensifies, and eventually fades from memory—especially when solutions appear uncertain or long-term. In Bangladesh, this theory is reflected in situations where allegations of irregularities are met with no visible, credible, or satisfactory explanation or action from the government.
On the other hand, French philosopher Maurice Halbwachs argued that social memory cannot survive unless it is institutionally reproduced (On Collective Memory, 1992). Therefore, in politically controversial or inconvenient situations, state silence or weak responses act as barriers preventing such events from becoming part of long-term collective memory.
In this context, the absence of accountability creates a culture of impunity, where public opinion gradually becomes numb despite repeated incidents, and forgetting turns into a normal social response.
2.
A recent example of this collective or social amnesia in Bangladesh is the measles outbreak and the deaths of more than four hundred children so far.
One of the main reasons behind the epidemic-level spread of measles was reportedly the interim government’s 2025 decision to procure 50 per cent of vaccines through the Open Tender Method. UNICEF and its partners expressed concern that this process could delay the overall procurement procedure by as much as 12 months.
Despite these concerns, the decision to proceed with open tenders remained in place, allegedly causing delays in vaccine collection. Furthermore, in 2025, vaccine porters reportedly went unpaid for nine months, health workers remained on strike for nearly three months, and vehicles used to travel from health centres to field areas lacked fuel. All these factors severely disrupted vaccination coverage.
In addition, because of the exceptional political situation in 2024 and several other reasons, the MR vaccine campaign scheduled for 2025 was not carried out. According to official statistics released at the end of March this year, only 59 per cent of children had received measles vaccines in 2025. Later, this information was removed from the government website (Prothom Alo, 2 May 2026).
These developments suggest that hundreds of innocent children and their families are suffering because of the interim government’s lack of foresight and mismanagement. Newspapers have published heartbreaking stories: one twin sister dying while the other survives, and the death of a long-awaited child born after 11 years of marriage.
Yet within just a few weeks, ordinary people have slowly begun forgetting the children who died from measles and shifted their attention to newer crises.
3.
The question now is whether the state itself played a role in pushing this public health disaster out of the centre of public attention.
Let us look briefly at some of the major public discussions during the recently concluded first session of the 13th National Parliament. The session formally ended on the night of 30 April 2026 after beginning on 12 March and lasting for 25 working days.
On 6 April, during the ninth sitting of parliament, MP Akhtar Hossain asked why children had not been rapidly brought under measles vaccination coverage. In response, the health minister said that mismanagement by both the Awami League and the interim government was responsible for the outbreak.
Later, on 22 April, in response to a supplementary question from Jamaat-e-Islami MP Salah Uddin regarding shortages of measles testing kits, the prime minister blamed the previous two governments while also stating that the current administration was actively addressing the crisis.
Unfortunately, despite the mismanagement and lack of foresight that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of children, no roadmap for accountability has been presented by the current government. The health minister even stated that the situation was not serious enough to warrant a state of emergency.
More surprisingly, the opposition never once demanded a proper investigation into the causes of the crisis in parliament. Nor did they criticise the irresponsible decisions of the interim government’s health ministry. To ordinary citizens, this appeared both disturbing and unacceptable. If elected representatives do not speak for the people in parliament, then why were they elected in the first place?
Had parliament officially declared the measles outbreak an epidemic, the relevant ministry would have been obliged to investigate its causes, effects, and prevention measures and to take effective action. Such a move would also have reassured the public.
People from different professions and social backgrounds have spoken about the outbreak through newspapers and other media. Yet the absence of any strong debate by the country’s two major political forces in parliament has disappointed the public.
As a result, society is gradually becoming emotionally detached from the deaths of children showing measles symptoms. This is not merely the result of limited public attention or cognitive constraints; rather, inadequate state response has acted as the determining factor.
4.
During the parliamentary session, another unprecedented incident from the interim government period came to light on 23 April.
Before the latest national election, the interim government allegedly pressured banks to collect Tk 1 billion from their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funds to support campaigning for a “Yes” vote in the referendum.
Despite objections from banks, pressure and negotiations reportedly led to nearly Tk 40 million being collected and distributed among organisations such as Shushashoner Jonno Nagorik (SHUJAN), the Students Against Discrimination Foundation, and Debate for Democracy. One of these organisations reportedly lacked the necessary registration to receive such funds (BBC News Bangla, 1 May 2026).
Yet the Bangladesh Election Commission had announced on 29 January that, under Section 21 of the Referendum Ordinance 2025 and Article 86 of the Representation of the People Order 1972, government employees were prohibited from urging citizens to vote either “Yes” or “No” in the referendum.
This naturally raises the question of whether the interim government knowingly violated the law. Is this why the Referendum Ordinance 2025 itself included an indemnity clause? Notably, Section 22, titled “Indemnity,” stated that no civil or criminal case or other legal proceedings could be initiated against any person for actions taken in implementing orders or directives under the ordinance.
Since the current parliament has now repealed the ordinance, there is no longer any legal shield protecting those involved from accountability. Yet the question remains: why was there no strong parliamentary debate over the liability of the interim government and Bangladesh Bank regarding such allegedly illegal and unethical financial transactions conducted in violation of the Election Commission’s directive?
This incident suggests that when neither the government nor the opposition responds meaningfully, even highly significant matters can disappear easily from public memory.
5.
On the final day of parliament’s first session, Prime Minister Tarique Rahman delivered the closing speech. In it, he made an important observation. He said: “We may have debated history extensively in parliament. But will that comfort the mother of a child suffering from measles? As a politician, I believe the people of Bangladesh want solutions to their problems more than political debates. Therefore, in this parliament we will not discuss popular topics; we will discuss correct decisions.”
It is important to note that although the two anti-public-interest decisions discussed in this article were taken during the interim government period, their consequences have unfolded under the current elected government. Therefore, in the interest of the country and its people, the government must ensure proper evaluation and accountability not only for the previous administration’s irregularities and corruption, but also for those committed during its own tenure. Only then will important public issues avoid disappearing amid the flood of daily news.
We must remember that collective amnesia does not merely erase injustices from public memory; at times, it also deprives people of their right to know the truth.
* Umme Wara is an Associate Professor in the Department of Criminology at the University of Dhaka.
* The views expressed are the author’s own.