CANDIDATES’ submission of affidavits before the February 12 national elections has once again exposes a collapse of accountability as mandatory wealth and income disclosure is treated as mere paperwork while oversight agencies remain inactive. What was introduced with a 2005 High Court ruling as a safeguard against corruption has over the years been reduced to a hollow formality, with neither the Election Commission nor the Anti-Corruption Commission showing any visible intent to examine the information placed before them. There has been a surge in ultra-wealthy candidates entering the race, alongside others whose affidavits portray improbably modest lives despite widely known displays of affluence. The disclosures show incomes that have doubled or tripled over time without explanation. Stark inconsistencies between declared assets and observable way of life and implausibly low income figures raise questions about tax evasion and illicit wealth accumulation. Despite repeated Anti-Corruption Commission assurances before elections, affidavits continue to gather dust, unverified and unquestioned. The failure to enforce scrutiny not only undermines the credibility of the system but also signals a broader erosion of electoral integrity.
In the present political context after the July uprising, the fall of a long-entrenched government and heightened public expectations of institutional reform, the continued neglect of affidavit scrutiny carries grave implications. First, the unchecked rise of billionaire candidates in parliamentary races reflects the steady capture of electoral politics by concentrated wealth. When massive asset growth, sometimes multiplying within a single decade, is left unexplained, it normalises the idea that enrichment through office or political proximity will neither be questioned nor punished. Second, the widespread submission of implausibly low income declarations points to a systemic failure linking electoral oversight with tax enforcement. As Transparency International Bangladesh notes, affidavits tied to tax returns merely reproduce a culture of tax evasion, which the National Board of Revenue almost unwilling to confront. Third, the passivity of the Election Commission and the Anti-Corruption Commission has effectively institutionalised dishonesty. By refusing to verify disclosures unless objections are formally raised, the election authorities shift their constitutional responsibility onto citizens while the Anti-Corruption Commission cites time constraints despite possessing legal powers under the agency’s law. Finally, this inertia empties recent legal amendments of meaning. Strong laws cannot restore credibility if enforcement remains selective or absent, particularly at a time when democratic renewal depends on visible, impartial accountability.
The authorities should, therefore, urgently establish a coordinated mechanism to verify candidate affidavits, cross-check declared assets with tax records and investigate discrepancies promptly. Independent audits, the public disclosure of findings and post-election enforcement should be a standard practice. Citizens, the media and civil society should be actively engaged in reporting irregularities, ensuring that transparency becomes an enforceable, rather than a symbolic, pillar of electoral integrity.
