Governance in Bangladesh has long been centred on individuals. Regardless of who is in power, authority is concentrated in the hands of a single leader. Over the past 53 years, every head of government has wielded immense and unchecked power, with their word becoming law. Decisions - right or wrong - were final, and ministers, secretaries and government officials relied solely on the prime minister for direction. The head of government remained visibly engaged in daily affairs, setting a precedent where governance was perceived as a one-person show.
Looking at the past 15 years, Bangladesh functioned as a constitutional autocracy, with the prime minister possessing authority rivalling that of monarchs. Despite constitutional provisions, the country was effectively governed by a single leader, sidelining democratic processes. Dr Akbar Ali Khan once wrote that the prime minister’s absolute control essentially undermined democracy. However, constitutional provisions do not inherently prevent collective governance. Over the past seven months, Prof Muhammad Yunus has demonstrated an alternative approach: how a head of government can operate through delegation and teamwork.
A long-standing norm in Bangladesh is that the head of government must be constantly visible on television, attending multiple events daily. Any absence from the public eye would spark speculation. However, in the past seven months, Chief Adviser Prof Yunus has maintained a relatively low profile, making appearances only when necessary. His presence is reserved for policy decisions and critical moments, ensuring that when he speaks, people listen. Unlike past leaders, he does not engage in repetitive speeches at minor events. As a result, his statements carry intellectual weight and attract public attention.
Previously, the prime minister was expected to intervene in all matters- whether it was a cricketer’s retirement, unpaid salaries of female footballers or relief efforts following a fire. Every issue, big or small, awaited the prime minister’s response. Ministers hesitated to act independently, often deferring decisions until consulting the prime minister. Government files remained stagnant as ministers waited for instructions. This excessive centralisation meant the prime minister was stretched thin, often unable to focus on crucial governance matters. Prof Yunus has broken this cycle. Over the past seven months, he has minimised direct intervention, allowing ministries to function independently and efficiently.
While this government is not without its shortcomings, a significant shift is evident- advisers no longer wait for the chief adviser’s approval before making decisions. Take the recent turmoil in women’s football: in the past, such an issue would have likely prompted direct intervention from the prime minister. But this time, the matter remained within the jurisdiction of the Bangladesh Football Federation, without interference from either the chief adviser or the Ministry of Youth and Sports. Prof Yunus has demonstrated that a head of government needs not to speak on every issue.
Concerns over law and order persist, but the home affairs adviser now addresses these matters through regular press briefings. The chief adviser’s press secretary also articulates his stance on key issues- an approach aligned with democratic norms. In the past, such communication structures were absent, with even ministers struggling to meet the prime minister. They had to rely on personal connections with bureaucrats just to get an audience. Now, advisers have direct access to the chief adviser, ensuring smoother decision-making and governance.
This shift has led to a significant achievement- each ministry now functions with greater autonomy and creativity. Field-level officials up to secretaries can engage in discussions and reach decisions independently. A prime example is the recent appointment of several new secretaries. Previously, such appointments were dictated by the Prime Minister’s Office, often influenced by powerful bureaucrats who promoted their associates. Under Prof Yunus’s leadership, a selection board was established to evaluate candidates, ensuring merit-based appointments. This decentralisation has introduced transparency and efficiency in governance.
Prof Yunus’s leadership has allowed for a more structured and policy-driven governance model. By stepping back from micro-management, he has been able to focus on broader national strategies. This approach has yielded quiet but meaningful progress for Bangladesh. Previously, when the prime minister was preoccupied with trivial matters like hiring office assistants or commenting on sports selections, it detracted from critical policymaking. Prof Yunus’s governance model corrects this imbalance.
Another notable shift is the emphasis on regular meetings with advisers. These meetings facilitate critical decision-making and collaborative governance, a stark contrast to the past when even ministers struggled to engage with the prime minister. Now, advisers can directly communicate with the chief adviser, fostering a more democratic and responsive administration.
A government is not about one individual but a collective effort, much like a sports team. Prof Yunus frequently emphasises this, arguing that effective governance requires all members to perform their roles diligently. Over the past seven months, this philosophy has been put into practice, with decision-making driven by teamwork rather than individual dominance.
Prof Yunus’s government is an interim administration. However, the next elected leadership can learn from his collective governance model. When power is centralised in one individual, the state becomes ineffective. Prof Yunus has demonstrated that governance can be conducted through collective strength. The constitution is no barrier to decentralised leadership- only the leader’s intent matters.
Bd-pratidin English/ Afia
