TIB Says Bangladesh’s Parties Are Turning Politics Into a Power-Centred Business
A Transparency International Bangladesh study of 32 political parties finds weak internal democracy, opaque finances and leadership concentrated around individuals and families.
Reading
In a Nutshell
- TIB presented its report, Institutional Governance of Political Parties in Bangladesh, on November 1. It approached 42 parties while 32 provided information. The study covers the period from the start of party registration in 2008 through December 2025, with some updated information through August 2026.
- The report found that parties lack clear financial rules and do not prepare annual budgets. TIB also said party and Election Commission websites do not publish audited annual accounts.
- TIB Executive Director Iftekharuzzaman says these conditions are helping turn party positions and political participation into a “power-centric business model.”
- TIB estimated that a party with offices and activities down to ward level could spend Tk1,532–2,188 crore a year, excluding election costs. This is a model-based estimate, not verified spending by any party.
- The study found that leadership elections in most parties rely on voice votes, while national council meetings are irregular in 16 parties. It also identified family-centred leadership in 10 parties and long-serving chiefs in 12.
- The Daily Star reported that businesspeople accounted for 48.5% of candidates and 59.9% of elected MPs in the 2026 parliamentary election, citing the study.
- TIB called for stronger financial disclosure, regular internal elections, greater Election Commission oversight and wider participation by women and grassroots members.
Context
TIB Executive Director Iftekharuzzaman said reliance on wealthy individuals and informal political financing fuels personal and family-centred leadership, black money, abuse of power and factional conflict. The report also describes limited grassroots influence over party decisions and nomination processes, along with weak safeguards against corruption and political violence.
TIB’s findings are based on information gathered from parties and other primary and secondary sources. 10 of the 42 parties it approached did not provide information. Its spending figures are estimates based on the scale of party operations, not audited accounts or proof of undeclared expenditure by a particular party.
Why It Matters
How parties choose leaders, raise money and award nominations helps determine who can enter politics and whose interests gain influence. TIB’s findings suggest that limited grassroots participation and dependence on wealthy financiers may narrow those opportunities, even before voters reach the ballot box. The concern therefore reaches beyond internal party management to the choices available to the public.
Financial disclosure is central to understanding that influence. Without accessible audited accounts, citizens cannot properly examine who funds parties or how money is spent. TIB’s model-based spending estimates do not prove wrongdoing by any particular party, but they underline the need for verifiable accounts rather than assumptions about political financing.
What We Think
The report makes a useful distinction between parties’ public commitments to democracy and the way they operate internally. Regular leadership elections, published accounts and clearer nomination procedures gives members and voters a stronger basis for assessing those commitments.
They may prioritise disclosure, backed by consistent Election Commission oversight. Parties deserve an opportunity to explain or challenge TIB’s findings. However, the debate carries more value with documented finances and clear decision-making rules. Reform becomes easier to assess when it produces information people are able to examine, rather than another set of assurances.