¶¶Òõ¾«Æ·

Shifting from a unitary to a federal system and dividing the country into four provinces without thoroughly evaluating its far-reaching consequences is not a prudent approach, writes Golam Rasul

THE interim government of Bangladesh formed an 11-member Administrative Reform Commission in October 2024, led by Abdul Muid Chowdhury, to recommend ways to make public administration more people-centric, accountable, efficient, and impartial. On February 15, the Commission submitted its recommendations, key among which is transitioning Bangladesh from unitary to a federal system, adopting a provincial government structure.

The Commission suggested forming four provinces based on the old divisions of Dhaka, Chattogram, Rajshahi, and Khulna, considering Dhaka as a centrally administered Capital City Government. Each province will have its own legislature, executive branch, and a bench of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court. The central government will retain control over defense, foreign relations, internal and border policy, finance, currency, international trade, foreign investment, railways, highways, airports, seaports, energy, power, and nuclear energy. Other matters will be managed by the provincial governments. Some areas, like higher education and health policy, will involve both central and provincial governments.

Ìý

Historical context and challenges

SINCE independence, Bangladesh has had a unitary system of government. Transitioning to a federal system is a complex process with significant political, economic, social, cultural, geographical, and national security implications. Although these recommendations are currently at the proposal stage, they will be finalised based on discussions with political parties and national consensus. Nonetheless, these recommendations will serve as the primary basis for dialogue and building consensus. Therefore, it is crucial to review and analyse them critically.

Ìý

Perspectives on federalism

LET us first understand what a federal system of government is and when is it desirable. Federalism involves multiple levels or tiers of government, with political and administrative powers constitutionally shared among these levels. A key feature of federalism is that each level of government has its own legislative, executive, and judicial structures and institutions.

Federalism offers the advantage of decentralising power by distributing authority across multiple tiers of government, thereby limiting excessive centralisation. However, political scientists note that while federalism aids decentralisation, it is a complex system. It can create significant obstacles in policy formulation and implementation, slow down government action, and exacerbate conflicts among different government tiers and regions.

William H Riker, in his book ‘Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance’ (1964), argued that federalism can weaken national unity, encourage separatist movements, destabilise democracy, and increase national security risks. Similarly, Arend Lijphart, in his book ‘Patterns of Democracy’ (1999), reached similar conclusions after analysing 36 countries’ government types, structures, and their effectiveness. George Anderson, in his book on ‘Federalism: An Introduction’Ìý(2008), also noted that ‘Federalism is not always the best system of government, and it is not suitable for all countries.’ The need for federalism arises due to differences in language, culture, religion, history, tradition, ethnic characteristics, and geography.

Ìý

Applicability of federalism in Bangladesh

BANGLADESH is a geographically compact and relatively small country with a high degree of homogeneity in language, culture, history, tradition, ethnicity, geography, and connectivity. It lacks the diverse regional disparities that typically justify the need for a federal system. The obvious question arises: what is the rationale behind the recommendation for a federal system of governance in Bangladesh? The Administrative Reform Commission has put forward two key arguments: first, to prevent excessive centralisation of power at the centre by decentralising power, and second, to enhance the quality and efficiency of public services through administrative decentralisation. Additionally, the commission highlights the need for a federal system to manage public service delivery in a large populous country like Bangladesh.

Ìý

Federalism and democratic quality

WHILE conventional wisdom suggests that federalism fosters democracy, real-world examples do not support this claim. Countries like Norway, the United Kingdom, Japan, and South Korea, despite having unitary systems, rank highly on the democracy index. In contrast, federal countries such as Russia, Nigeria, Venezuela, and Pakistan rank much lower, indicating that governance structure alone does not determine the democratic quality.

Venezuela, despite having 23 provinces with state governments, saw authoritarian rule under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro, who undermined democratic institutions through election fraud. Similarly, Nigeria, a federal republic with 36 states, experienced nearly 30 years of military and civilian authoritarian rule. Pakistan, with its four-province federal structure, has also struggled with prolonged authoritarianism, preventing its democratic institutions from gaining a strong footing. These examples illustrate that a federal system alone does not guarantee the democratic governance.

India, one of the world’s largest federal states with 28 states, has seen increasing centralisation of power under prime minister Narendra Modi since 2014. Despite infrastructural development, India has declined on the democracy index, with accusations of weakening democratic institutions and undermining state autonomy. A study published by Cambridge University Press found that federalism has not prevented democratic backsliding. Comparative analysis shows that 22 per cent of federal states have experienced democratic backsliding, compared to 20 per cent of unitary states, indicating a slightly higher rate of decline in federal systems.

Ìý

Federalism and public services

REAL-WORLD experiences show that while federalism decentralises power, it does not directly correlate with better public services. Countries like Nigeria, Brazil, and India, despite having federal systems, struggle with poor public services, low bureaucratic efficiency, and widespread corruption. In contrast, unitary states such as France, Japan, and South Korea provide high-quality public services, have lower corruption, and ensure faster decision-making and implementation. This suggests that governance quality depends more on institutional effectiveness than the type of system in place.

When comparing public services between the United States and France, it is observed that the quality of public services in the unitary state of France is better than in the United States. In the US, many people are deprived of healthcare, whereas in France, healthcare is available at comparatively lower costs. Similarly, France’s public transportation system is more people-oriented, offering affordable options. In critical areas such as disaster management, the US has failed to provide the desired level of public service due to lack of coordination between central and state governments. For example, the management of Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) highlighted delays in effective disaster management measures due to a lack of timely coordination among federal, state, and local governments, resulting in significant loss of life and property.

ÌýThe Government Effectiveness Index evaluates the quality of public services, civil service competence, and the effectiveness of policy formulation and implementation. The 2023 Index shows that unitary states like Singapore, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, and the United Arab Emirates rank higher in government effectiveness compared to many federal states.

Although the Reform Commission cites Nepal as an example in support of a federal system, Bangladesh outperforms Nepal in terms of government effectiveness. Moreover, growing resentment toward federalism in Nepal stems from the high costs of maintaining provincial structures, which have not been offset by reductions in central expenditures. This highlights a key challenge of federalism — the financial burden of sustaining multiple tiers of government. In Bangladesh, over 95 per cent of revenue is already allocated to government expenditures such as salaries, interest payments, and debt servicing. Establishing a provincial government structure would further strain resources, leaving little room for development work.

Ìý

Population size and federalism

THE argument for a federal system based on Bangladesh’s large population lacks justification. The Commission suggests a provincial governance system to improve public service delivery for 170 million people. However, countries with larger populations, such as China and Indonesia, provide better public services without a federal system. Similarly, Japan, France, and Vietnam, despite having large populations, ensure high-quality public services through unitary governance. This suggests that population size alone does not necessitate federalism, making the Commission’s argument unconvincing.

Ìý

Constitutional implications

THE constitution has fundamental characteristics that cannot be altered under the basic structure doctrine, which limits the scope of constitutional amendments. While the legislature holds the power to amend the constitution, this power is not absolute; it cannot make changes that undermine its core principles. This doctrine safeguards key elements such as sovereignty, democracy, the rule of law, and the unitary structure of the government, with the Supreme Court serving as its guardian. In 1973, India adopted this doctrine through theÌýKesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case (Writ Petition (Civil) 135 of 1970) and Bangladesh followed in 1989 with the Eighth Amendment case (Anwar Hossain Chowdhury vs. Bangladesh Government). The Supreme Court has since upheld that the parliament cannot amend the constitution in a way that erodes its basic structure.Ìý

Bangladesh’s constitution establishes a unitary system as a fundamental structure. The Commission’s proposal for a provincial system marks a significant alteration, which the legislature cannot enact under the basic structure doctrine. The process of transitioning to a federal system is highly complex and would require direct consent of the people, making its implementation legally and procedurally challenging.

Ìý

Federalism and governance quality

EXPERIENCE from various countries shows that there is no direct correlation between a federal system and the quality of democracy or public services. The argument for adopting a federal system in Bangladesh lacks strong justification. Both unitary and federal systems have their respective advantages and challenges. Bangladesh is a homogenous state in terms of language, culture, history, tradition, ethnic characteristics, and geography. The simplistic belief that a federal system will automatically enhance democracy or good governance is unrealistic.

Ìý

Complexity of transitioning to federalism

TRANSITIONING from a unitary to a federal system is a complex process with significant political, economic, administrative, geographical, and socio-cultural implications. Administrative divisions have the potential to create social, political, economic, and psychological divisions that could destabilise the country and pose a threat to national security. Proposing such a radical transformation, shifting from a unitary to a federal system and dividing the country into four provinces without thoroughly evaluating its far-reaching consequences, is not a prudent approach.

Ìý

Conclusion

INSTEAD of moving from a unitary to a provincial system, efforts should be focused on improving political culture, strengthening democratic practices, empowering local government institutions, devolving authority, changing bureaucratic attitudes, eroding colonial-era mindsets, and fostering professionalism and a service-oriented governance approach. Many unitary governments, such as those in France and Japan, have demonstrated that strong local government institutions can thrive within a unitary system. This can decentralise power while maintaining national unity and effective public service.

Ìý

ÌýGolam Rasul is a professor of economics at International University of Business Agriculture and Technology, Dhaka.