Welfare State Promise Could Redefine Bangladesh’s Electoral Politics
In a Nutshell:
- Prime Minister Tarique Rahman said his government wants to build Bangladesh as a welfare state through programmes intended to improve citizens’ living standards.
- He pointed to the Family Card as one of the government’s initiatives under this wider welfare agenda.
- Speaking in Pakundia, Kishoreganj, he said citizens should resist attempts to create disorder, arguing that instability damages businesses, employment and livelihoods.
- Rahman said the government would present a 10-year power-sector plan in parliament from August 27 to address the country’s energy problems.
- He linked public support for the government’s development agenda to the February 12 election mandate and urged patience while reforms are implemented.
Context
The aspiration to make Bangladesh a welfare state has been part of the country’s political imagination since independence and the 1972 Constitution, more than five decades ago. Article 15 assigns the state responsibility for ensuring basic necessities, including food, shelter, education, medical care, work and social security in cases of unemployment, illness, disability, widowhood and old age. The debate acquired a more concrete policy form with the National Social Security Strategy approved in 2015, which framed poverty reduction, human development and lower inequality as central state commitments. The enduring question, therefore, is not whether Bangladesh should pursue welfare, but whether it can move from fragmented, discretionary assistance toward reliable rights and services available to citizens irrespective of political identity or personal connections.
Why it matters
A truly functioning welfare state could alter Bangladesh’s political culture as much as its social conditions. When access to healthcare, pensions, food support, education, jobs assistance and basic services depends on party networks, local intermediaries or personal influence, citizens can become politically dependent rather than politically empowered. A rights-based welfare system could begin to reverse that relationship by making essential support a predictable obligation of the state. Bangladesh’s constitutional commitments and its social-security strategy already provide a basis for this shift. Over time, elections could become less about who can deliver selective favours and more about which party can credibly offer better public services, create decent work, maintain affordable energy and manage public money honestly. That would strengthen issue-based, or programmatic, competition. The risk, however, is that welfare rhetoric becomes a new channel for patronage: benefits distributed selectively, enrollment influenced by party affiliation, and public funds used to reward supporters. Research on clientelism highlights how exchanges of targeted benefits and political backing can weaken accountability. The democratic value of a welfare state therefore depends on transparent rules, equal access and institutions that outlast any single government.
What we think
Bangladesh should pursue welfare-state building as a project of equal citizenship and electoral reform, not simply as an expansion of allowances. The practical question is straightforward: can a citizen obtain an old-age allowance, disability support, food assistance, healthcare benefit or education service without approaching a political broker, producing a party recommendation or fearing exclusion because of political views? If citizens can, welfare provision may reduce dependency and allow voters to judge governments on performance. The National Social Security Strategy identified relevant reforms, including modernising delivery, using stronger information systems, improving targeting and building a more coherent protection system. The government should translate those principles into a unified social registry, published eligibility criteria, direct payments, accessible grievance mechanisms, independent audits and routine disclosure of who is covered, who is excluded and why. Political parties, meanwhile, should be pressed to present costed welfare manifestos: which benefits are universal, which are targeted, how programmes will be financed, and what enforceable standards citizens can expect. Universal provision may require greater tax capacity, while targeted schemes can conserve resources but leave room for error and manipulation. Bangladesh’s strategic goal should be clear: public welfare must become a right protected by institutions, not a favour exchanged for electoral loyalty.