The 2024 uprising represented a historic rejection of authoritarianism, political arrogance, personality cults and the culture of state capture by a privileged few. Millions of Bangladeshis envisioned a country where public resources would be distributed based on citizens’ needs rather than political identity, family connections or geographical loyalty. Yet, the emerging controversy surrounding the so-called ‘Shibganj model of development’ raises a fundamental and uncomfortable question: Has Bangladesh truly moved away from the old politics of patronage and dynastic privilege or is it merely witnessing a change in beneficiaries?
For years, the Awami League government had been heavily criticised for creating a development model that had disproportionately favoured politically influential regions, most notably Gopalganj, the home district of former prime minister Sheikh Hasina. Such concentration of public investment contributed to severe regional disparities and strengthened the perception that national resources were being distributed through political loyalty rather than objective development priorities.
The expectation after the political transition was that a new democratic culture would emerge which will be built on fairness, transparency, decentralisation and equal citizenship. Unfortunately, recent developments at Shibganj in Bogura suggest that the old political culture may not have disappeared. It may, rather, have found a new address.
According to investigation and public reports, within the first few months of the government, Shibganj, represented by the minister of state for local government Mir Shahe Alam, received approximately Tk 74 crore in road and bridge projects, the highest allocation for any upazila. While nearly one hundred upazilas reportedly received no such projects and the average allocation for hundreds of upazilas remained only a fraction of this amount, Shibganj alone received resources equivalent to what many ordinary upazilas would receive collectively.
This pattern of disproportionate allocation is particularly troubling because it reflects the significant development inequality that previous governments were criticised for institutionalising. Regional disparity cannot be corrected by replacing one preferred district with another. Inclusive development requires a fair and evidence-based allocation system where poverty, infrastructure deficits, population needs and local priorities determine public spending, not the political influence of elected representatives.
More concerning are allegations regarding conflicts of interest in the distribution of development contracts. Reports indicate that a significant portion of projects in Shibganj was awarded to contractors linked to the state minister’s family and local party affiliates. The fact that projects initiated under the ministry led by a minister allegedly benefited his own family members creates a serious ethical dilemma, regardless of the legal explanations offered. Public office must not only be free of corruption, it must also remain free of the perception of personal enrichment and political favouritism.
The controversy over the naming of newly created unions of Shibganj further strengthens concerns about the persistence of a personality-centred political culture. The allegations that public administrative entities were named after the state minister’s ancestral home and members of the family evoke memories of the excessive political naming practices of the previous Awami League regime. Bangladesh has spent decades struggling against the culture of personal glorification in public institutions. Reintroducing similar practices under a different political banner undermines the promise of democratic renewal.
The issue is also connected to the current governance crisis at the local level. As elected representatives in many local government institutions have been replaced with administrators, the process of public consultation and community participation has become significantly weaker. Decisions involving local identity, development priorities and public expenditure are increasingly vulnerable to influence from political and administrative elites rather than reflecting the aspirations of ordinary citizens.
This situation also contradicts the political commitments made before the elections. BNP leaders repeatedly argued that Bangladesh needed to move beyond the politics of district favouritism and family privilege. The commitment was to build an inclusive Bangladesh where every citizen, regardless of birthplace or political connection, would enjoy equal rights over national resources. If the first signs of governance indicate a return to the same old culture of privileged development, public trust in democratic transition will quickly erode.
The central lesson from the failures of previous governments is clear: dynastic politics is not merely about whether a family occupies political office. It is also about how state institutions are used to create economic opportunities, political influence and symbolic dominance for those connected to power. The transition from one ruling party to another has little meaning if the architecture of privilege remains untouched.
Bangladesh cannot build an inclusive future by changing the names of those who benefit from inequality. The country needs a fundamental transformation in how development decisions are made. Several urgent reforms are therefore necessary.
First, development allocations should be guided by a transparent national formula based on population, poverty levels, infrastructure gaps, climate vulnerability and measurable development indicators. The discretionary power of ministers and politically influential actors over local development priorities must be significantly reduced.
Second, all development projects and procurement processes should be subjected to full public disclosure. The use of limited tender methods, especially in ordinary infrastructure projects, must be strictly monitored to prevent political capture and favouritism.
Third, strict conflict-of-interest regulations must be enforced to prevent members of the family of ministers, members of parliament and influential political figures from benefiting from projects under their direct administrative influence.
Fourth, local government institutions should be restored through democratic elections as soon as possible. Long-term dependence on appointed administrators weakens public participation and creates opportunities for politically motivated decisions.
Finally, Bangladesh’s political parties must recognise that the culture of dynastic privilege is not exclusive to any single party. It is a structural problem that has repeatedly travelled from one government to another. The country has witnessed one version under the Awami League. It must not now witness another version under a different political colour.
The spirit of the 2024 upraising was not a demand for a transfer of privilege. It was a demand for the end of privilege itself. If Bangladesh fails to learn this lesson, the nation risks replacing one era of political dominance with another while ordinary citizens remain excluded from the development that is carried out in their name.
Amith Kumar Malaker is a human rights activist.
