How far have political parties progressed on reform and financial transparency?

Since 15 February, political parties engaged in dialogue and efforts at consensus for six consecutive months on various constitutional and political reforms. This achievement of the National Consensus Commission must be acknowledged. Except for the first few years after independence 54 years ago, Bangladesh’s politics has largely remained confined within a two-party framework. Now, with one of those parties in exile and its public activities banned, the political stage is taking on a new, multiparty form of both rivalry and cooperation.

Leaders from nearly three dozen political parties have participated in intense discussions, reportedly agreeing to a set of acceptable reforms regarding the constitution, state structure, parliament, elections, and the judiciary. This is encouraging progress. Even though unanimity has not been achieved on every issue, the very fact that they have demonstrated the ability to resolve disagreements through dialogue, rather than by force on the streets, deserves commendation.

However, there are also reasons for disappointment that cannot be overlooked. The most glaring failure lies in the near-total neglect of reform within the political parties themselves. If parties had begun internal reforms, real progress could have been made in ensuring women’s representation in parliament. At the very least, we would not have heard National Consensus Commission member Badiul Alam Majumdar lamenting, “A disaster has taken place in establishing women’s rights, a catastrophe for which we are all responsible.”

Under the Representation of the People Order (RPO) of 2008, political parties were supposed to reserve 33 per cent of committee positions at various levels for women by five years ago. No party has shown any sign of working toward this goal. Even now, none appear genuinely willing to make a firm commitment regarding this. The discussion remains stuck on the symbolic question of whether to increase the number of reserved seats in parliament. Unless women can strengthen their positions within their parties, the pattern of nominating wives and daughters to fulfill quotas will persist, and the cycle of partisan attitude in parliament will continue.

It was hoped that women who had served as MPs from at least two of the parties involved in the all-party dialogues would push their parties to adopt women’s rights as part of their agenda and reflect that in the Consensus Commission’s deliberations. Unfortunately, even parties that claim to be championing progressive ideals have shown no meaningful progress.

The student–people’s uprising of July last year brought forward an unprecedented number of female student activists, raising hopes that the new political parties emerging from that movement would include strong female representation. Yet aside from token appearances in a few discussions, this has not translated into any effective role, which is further evidence of parties’ resistance to internal reform.

Another critical issue of introducing reforms among the political parties is their financing. For years, the need to free politics from the influence of black money has been discussed. The Representation of the People Order of 2008 and the Political Party Registration Regulations lay down specific rules to this effect. But are these rules being followed? If not, what actions are being taken, and if none, why? These questions demand answers.

The latest income–expenditure reports submitted to the Election Commission (EC) by political parties have raised further questions. According to news reports, by 31 July, 28 parties had submitted their accounts. Among them, Jamaat-e-Islami reported the highest income and expenditure of all. In 2024, its income was 289.7 million taka, while expenditure stood at 237.33 million taka.

Before its registration was canceled, Jamaat last submitted accounts in 2013. This year, after regaining registration, it filed its accounts again after more than a decade. Yet, since Jamaat remained active throughout this time (except for three or four days in early August last year), the income and expenditure for those years cannot simply be considered irrelevant.

The BNP’s report showed that between 1 January and 31 December 2024, the party earned 156.6 million taka and spent 48 million taka, leaving a surplus of 108.6 million taka now deposited in bank accounts.

Published reports also included figures for the Jatiya Party, the Amar Bangladesh (AB) Party, and the Gono Odhikar Parishad. In 2024, JaPa’s income was 26.43 million taka, with 17.98 million in expenditures, leaving 8.45 million in surplus. The AB Party earned 13.8 million taka. Gono Odhikar Parishad’s income was 4.6 million taka against 4.59 million in expenditure.

All of these accounts show one thing clearly: none of the parties were struggling financially; all had surpluses. This is good news. But what remains invisible is the source of these funds. Beyond small grassroots collections, who is giving lump-sum donations, and why, remains undisclosed. Parties should voluntarily reveal such contributions, and leaders should be obliged to disclose any financial support they receive personally. Doing so could reduce the widespread extortion in the name of party funding. If not eliminated entirely, it could at least be brought under the control of party leadership.

Yet the EC’s reporting format does not even ask for this information. It is hard to understand why that information is not sought. Furthermore, party registration rules clearly require all income and expenditure to be handled through bank accounts. It is astonishing, therefore, that Jamaat-e-Islami’s Secretary General, Mia Golam Parwar, signed a report stating that the party has no bank account for managing its finances.

According to reports, the EC sent letters to new applicant parties that failed to meet this requirement. What action it now takes regarding Jamaat will be worth watching. The matter carries particular weight because Jamaat is the only party to declare that it donated 110.5 million taka to its election candidates—an average of 368,000 taka per candidate. Under the old election law, candidates were legally obliged to conduct all financial transactions through bank accounts. If the law has since changed, that is another matter. If not, have Jamaat and its candidates already violated the rules?

Another universal question arises: if citizens are required to pay taxes once their income crosses a certain threshold—regardless of surplus—why should political parties’ income not be taxable? Businesses and companies are not exempt from taxes even when they incur losses; often, they are required to pay in advance. In India, political parties are required to pay taxes, and recently the Congress party lost a legal battle in the Supreme Court over a disputed tax claim, leaving it burdened with nearly two billion rupees.

* Kamal Ahmed is a journalist.

** The views expressed are the author’s own.