For decades, villages have been at the heart of Bangladesh’s political landscape, places where government institutions, political parties, and citizens interact to shape everyday governance. While the structure of rural institutions like the Union Parishad (UP) has changed since independence, the way people engage with these bodies has changed even more profoundly. Between 2009 and 2024, national politics reached deep into rural areas, concentrating power within ruling party networks and reshaping how citizens engage with, participate in, and understand local governance. Drawing on insights from BRAC Institute of Governance and Development’s (BIGD) study, “Evolution of Village Social Order in Rural Bangladesh: A 50-Year Analysis,” this article explores how political relationships in villages dramatically transformed between 2009 and 2024.
A Brief Historical Arc
In the years following independence, rural politics in Bangladesh was diverse and vibrant. The first Union Parishad elections in 1973 reflected a lively but fragmented local political scene. Citizens tended to vote for individuals they knew and respected—people of reputation, land, or social standing. Local leaders maintained close, reciprocal ties with villagers, and although patronage did exist, it was moderated by the familiarity and trust of community relationships.
During the regimes of Ziaur Rahman and Ershad, rural politics began to move toward a more structured form of patronage. The introduction of the Gram Sarkar system and the use of local representatives to implement national programs brought government institutions closer to citizens, while also deepening the reach of political parties into village life. By the 1990s and early 2000s, with multiparty competition firmly established, the Union Parishad became a central arena for distributing resources and securing voter loyalty. Candidates increasingly relied on party networks to connect them with the people controlling government resources, enabling them to secure roads, social safety nets, and employment programs for their villages. The idea of “development” became tied to political allegiance.
Even then, many citizens continued to view their Union Parishad chairmen and members as approachable intermediaries. Siddiqui (2000) showed villagers turning to them to resolve disputes, obtain government relief, or seek informal justice— services that blended official authority with personal influence. This hybrid form of governance was far from perfect, but it allowed room for dialogue and negotiation between citizens and their representatives.
The 2009-2024 Shift
The Awami League’s sweeping victory in 2008 and its steady consolidation of power marked a turning point in rural governance. The Upazila Parishad Act of 2009, which assigned Members of Parliament (MPs) as “advisers” to local councils, significantly shifted the balance of power away from local councils to the national authorities. MPs began to supervise development projects, manage social safety net distributions, and influence the flow of local government funds. Their authority extended deeply into Union Parishad affairs, often shaping who could run for office, who received resources, and who was sidelined.
The introduction of party symbols in the 2016 Union Parishad elections further reinforced this centralization of power. For the first time, candidates ran not as independents but under official party banners. This shift blurred the distinction between public service and political allegiance. A field report from Majumdar (2016) documented that chairmanship positions were often determined less by community support and more by party nominations, with many hopeful candidates spending significant amounts of money to secure endorsement from the ruling party.
This new power structure reshaped how citizens interacted with the state. Villagers who once approached local leaders directly for help now had to navigate party-aligned networks. Access to public benefits, such as the Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) program or road construction projects, increasingly depended on political connections. What was once a relatively equal, community-based relationship between leaders and citizens became more hierarchical, filtered through layers of party influence and bureaucratic control.
Changing Dynamics of Citizen Engagement
BIGD’s field observations from Evolution of Village Social Order in Rural Bangladesh: A 50-Year Analysis, conducted across districts such as Cumilla, Jamalpur, and Shariatpur, reveal how these structural changes play out in everyday life. Citizens, especially those not connected to the ruling party, reported feelings of fear and detachment, subsequently resulting in their limited participation in local governance. Public meetings like ward shavas, originally designed for inclusive local planning, are often dominated by ruling party activists, leaving little space for open discussion or differing opinions.
Although digital governance platforms and participatory budgeting were introduced to increase transparency, their use remains minimal. Many citizens now view the Union Parishad less as a space for solving community problems and more as an administrative branch of the ruling party. Women members, while present through reserved seats, often face exclusion from key decisions, with their authority constrained by male chairmen and party hierarchies.
Meanwhile, political patronage has made access to public services highly personalized. Villagers applying for old-age allowances or relief support frequently depend on “brokers” linked to local party offices, which blurs the line between political favour and citizens’ rights. As a result, people’s access to state services often feels like a privilege granted by party intermediaries rather than a guaranteed entitlement.
The Other Side of Connectivity
However, this shift has not been entirely disempowering. The spread of political networks has also expanded political awareness. Rural citizens today are more informed about government policies, social protection schemes, and elections, though their participation in local governance and access to these services are often shaped by partisan loyalty. Political engagement has become more visible, but less diverse.
Digital tools and migration networks have added another layer to this change. Returning migrants and educated youth increasingly act as intermediaries between villagers and local administrations, assisting others in accessing services or online platforms. Yet, many of these new actors also become entangled in patronage systems, reinforcing the same political dependencies they were expected to overcome.
Rethinking Local Governance
Between 2009 and 2024, the Union Parishad evolved from a form of representational institution to one that is based on party-based relationships. Authority now depends less on community trust and more on vertical links to the ruling party’s organizational network. As a result, the quality of citizens’ engagement with local government often hinges not on formal participatory processes but on their political connections.
Rebuilding citizen trust in local governance, therefore, requires more than structural reform; it demands a renewal of democratic practices in everyday administration. Strengthening the independence of the Union Parishad, maintaining neutrality in elections, and ensuring transparency in the distribution of social safety nets can help return a sense of agency to citizens.
The village remains the most direct point of contact between the state and ordinary people. Its political landscape continues to change, but the central challenge remains: to make sure that participation leads to empowerment, not dependency, and that citizens’ voices are heard above the pressures of partisan politics.
