Between TIB’s Critique and Political Reality

When a new government completes its first hundred days, the public conversation usually follows a familiar script. Supporters celebrate achievements, opponents catalogue failures, and watchdog organisations publish scorecards. The recent assessment by Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) on the BNP-led government’s first 100 days fits comfortably within this tradition. It identifies important shortcomings, raises legitimate concerns about governance and institutional reform, and warns against complacency. Yet the larger political reality within which these hundred days unfolded deserves equal attention. Judging this government solely through the lens of what it has not yet achieved risks overlooking the extraordinary circumstances under which it assumed office and the nature of the state it inherited. The most interesting question is not whether the government has fulfilled every promise within a hundred days. No government in any democratic system can realistically accomplish such a task. Therefore, the more meaningful question is whether the first hundred days indicate movement in the right direction. On that score, the picture appears more nuanced than many critics acknowledge.

Bangladesh’s political culture has developed a peculiar obsession with immediate transformation. Every incoming government is expected to simultaneously restore law and order, reform institutions, eliminate corruption, strengthen democracy, revive the economy, protect human rights, modernise administration and satisfy public expectations almost overnight. When these miracles fail to materialise within a few months, disappointment quickly turns into condemnation.

Such expectations may be emotionally understandable, but they are rarely grounded in administrative reality. Institutions are not rebuilt at the speed of political speeches. State systems carry the accumulated habits, weaknesses, incentives and dysfunctions of many years. Governments may change through elections, but bureaucracies, laws, procedures and institutional cultures do not automatically transform the next morning.
Ironically, some of the strongest criticisms directed at the current government reflect precisely how difficult genuine reform actually is. TIB points to the absence of visible restructuring in bodies such as the Anti-Corruption Commission, the National Human Rights Commission and the Information Commission. These concerns are important. Yet the criticism itself reveals a deeper truth. If reforming such institutions were easy, Bangladesh would not have been debating the same governance challenges decade after decade.

There is another aspect that deserves consideration. Throughout Bangladesh’s political history, governments have often been criticised for concentrating power, bypassing parliament and making major decisions without meaningful debate. In contrast, the current administration inherited a political environment marked by extraordinary expectations regarding consultation, consensus-building and democratic legitimacy.
Consensus politics, however, is slower than command politics. A government that consults stakeholders, negotiates competing interests and seeks broader legitimacy will inevitably move more slowly than one that simply imposes decisions. The delay may frustrate observers, but speed alone should not be mistaken for effectiveness.

Consider the criticism surrounding ordinances passed during the interim period. Some ordinances were retained, while others related to the judiciary, human rights, anti-corruption mechanisms, and enforced disappearances were suspended or repealed. Critics interpret this as inconsistency. Another interpretation is possible. A democratically elected government may reasonably conclude that extraordinary legal measures introduced during a transitional period require fresh parliamentary scrutiny rather than automatic continuation.

Similarly, concerns regarding the Cyber Security Act and personal data protection legislation deserve serious discussion. Freedom of expression remains an essential democratic value. Yet every government today faces a difficult balancing act between protecting digital rights and responding to cybercrime, misinformation, financial fraud and national security concerns. The challenge is not unique to Bangladesh. Democracies across the world continue to struggle with the same dilemma. The absence of immediate legislative amendments does not necessarily indicate hostility towards freedom; it may reflect the complexity of designing alternatives that are both effective and rights-respecting.

The debate on law and order presents another example of how statistics can sometimes obscure context. The figures cited by TIB regarding murders, robberies, kidnappings, violence against women and incidents of mob violence are undoubtedly alarming. No responsible government should dismiss them. However, the existence of crime statistics alone does not establish government failure. Every administration inherits an existing security environment. Criminal networks do not disappear after an election. Organised extortion, land grabbing, political violence and mob behaviour often reflect social problems that have developed over many years. The true measure of a government’s commitment is not whether crime exists, but whether it demonstrates the political will to confront it.

In fact, one of the most significant challenges facing the current government may be the public’s tendency to interpret every criminal incident through a political lens. If crime increases, the government is blamed. If law enforcement acts aggressively, concerns about human rights emerge. If authorities proceed cautiously, accusations of weakness follow.

The same complexity applies to media freedom. Reports of harassment, arrests and legal action involving journalists are concerning and deserve investigation. A democratic government must remain accountable to criticism and protect independent journalism. Yet fairness also requires distinguishing between systemic repression and individual incidents that may involve diverse legal or political circumstances. The existence of disputes involving journalists should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of a coordinated assault on press freedom.

In many countries, the first hundred days become controversial because governments undermine democratic safeguards, concentrate authority, or attack institutional independence. In Bangladesh’s current context, the debate centres largely on whether reform is proceeding fast enough and whether campaign promises are being translated into concrete action. While this may still justify criticism, it is a fundamentally different type of criticism.

Governments should certainly be held accountable for their commitments. Civil society organisations such as TIB perform an essential role by monitoring performance and identifying gaps between promises and implementation. Their findings deserve serious consideration. At the same time, accountability should not become impatience, and scrutiny should not evolve into unrealistic expectations.

Bangladesh’s democratic journey has often suffered from a destructive tendency to swing between exaggerated optimism and excessive pessimism. The BNP-led government’s first hundred days have undoubtedly exposed weaknesses, delays and unresolved challenges. Yet they have also highlighted the immense difficulty of governing a complex state while attempting to balance reform, stability, legality and public expectation. The real test will not be whether every promise was fulfilled within one hundred days. The real test will be whether the government can convert early intentions into lasting institutional change over the years ahead. A hundred days may be sufficient to judge enthusiasm. It is rarely enough to judge history.
______________________________________
The writer is an academic, journalist and political analyst. He can be reached at [email protected]