A state becomes strong when it counts every citizen and accords each person dignity. Yet in Bangladesh, nearly one in every two citizens does not exist in the state’s official records.
Birth registration stands at just 50%, while death registration lingers at 47%. In effect, the state is failing to account for more than half of its population. This invisibility is a structural weakness that steadily undermines governance from within.
At its core, governance depends on three interconnected functions: Planning, budgeting, and service delivery. Reliable data is the common thread binding all three.
For the state, it is essential to know how many children are being born, where mortality rates are highest and why, and where maternal and child deaths are most prevalent.
Without such information, decisions about where to build schools, how many hospital beds are needed, how much vaccine and medicine to procure, or where to deploy health workers are based on assumptions rather than facts.
Policies built on estimates may appear functional in the short term, but they are rarely accurate, equitable, or sustainable. As a result, some areas end up with surplus schools while others have none; some have hospitals without health workers, while others lack both.
The consequences of these data gaps are visible across sectors.
Some hospitals stand underutilized due to staffing shortages, while densely populated regions remain severely underserved. Urban infrastructure fails to keep pace with population growth, and disaster preparedness plans are misaligned with real demographic risks.
These are not merely technical miscalculations; they reflect deeper limitations in state capacity -- limitations rooted in the inability to systematically record life and death.
In well-governed countries, birth and death registration systems form the backbone of vital statistics -- the quantitative information on a population’s natality (births), mortality, nuptiality, and divorces.
Regular, reliable data on population dynamics is crucial for sound policy-making. These statistics guide public health planning, education, urban development, disaster management, and economic policy.
Yet in Bangladesh, despite having a registration system in place, there is no legal obligation to consistently produce and use vital statistics generated from registration data. This gap deprives policy-makers of the evidence needed for effective governance.
Under the Birth and Death Registration Act of 2004, the primary responsibility for registration lies with families. In reality, nearly two-thirds of births in Bangladesh occur in hospitals, clinics, or other health facilities.
The most efficient and reliable moment to record a birth or death is at the point of care; yet, health facilities are not legally mandated to perform this function. As a result, the state is failing to utilize its most effective data-collection channel.
Bangladesh lags behind in birth and death registration due to complex procedures, technical shortcomings, weak coordination with healthcare facilities, legal gaps, and low public awareness. These challenges continue to hinder universal coverage, despite the system’s importance for both individual rights and national planning.
Experts have long argued that mandating registration at health facilities could address many of these systemic failures.
Many citizens remain unaware of the benefits of registration or how to complete the process. The registration system itself is often cumbersome, leading to delays and frustration.
Server problems, software glitches, and poor data integration between government agencies further compound these difficulties.
Meanwhile, hospitals and clinics -- where most births and deaths occur -- are not legally required to register these events, resulting in missed opportunities.
This widespread non-registration ultimately deprives citizens of basic rights, including access to identification documents, education, and voting, while also undermining national planning.
Amending the Birth and Death Registration Act, 2004, to legally require public and private health facilities to register births and deaths at the point of service would be a practical and effective solution.
Many countries across the Asia-Pacific region have overcome this challenge by introducing health facility-based registration systems, achieving near-universal coverage.
In these systems, births and deaths are recorded immediately in national databases, with the state assuming responsibility rather than placing the burden on individuals.
Registration becomes automatic rather than optional, and completeness improves dramatically.
Bangladesh can achieve similar progress through clear legal reforms. Assigning all public and private hospitals, clinics, and health facilities the responsibility for registering births and deaths would rapidly expand coverage, reduce delays, and improve data quality.
Such reform would not only safeguard citizens’ rights but also strengthen the state’s capacity to plan and govern effectively.
At the same time, it must be mandatory to regularly produce vital statistics from registration data so that policies and budgets are grounded in evidence.
Simplifying registration procedures, waiving correction fees within a defined timeframe, upgrading technological infrastructure, and ensuring trained personnel at the local level are equally critical steps.
Birth and death registration is not an administrative burden; it is a pillar of good governance. When this system is weak, the state itself cannot stand firmly.
If Bangladesh is serious about building an efficient, accountable, and data-driven system of governance, strengthening the Birth and Death Registration Act and mandating health facility-based registration must be treated as fundamental priorities.
Reaz Ahmad is Editor, Dhaka Tribune.
