Before the national election, there were meetings between a delegation of leading business figures and the BNP Chairperson and now Prime Minister Tarique Rahman at the party’s Gulshan Office. At the time, while it had drawn public attention, it settled just as quickly. Now, after a crucial national election, it is necessary to view such meetings as worthy of careful and sober examination -- not for what was said alone, but for what they signify.
Every action by influential actors -- political, bureaucratic, or the corporate world -- carries amplified meaning at such a crucial time. We know now what many observers argued when the meeting was held: That BNP was presented as the inevitable next governing party.
Such a perception, whether intended or not, played a part in undermining efforts to create a level playing field for all political parties and complicated the Election Commission’s already difficult task of ensuring neutrality and public trust.
Business leaders, understandably, always want to engage with future policymakers. They seek an enabling environment, predictability, the rule of law, and protection against corruption -- demands that are not only legitimate but also essential for economic growth. The question, however, is not whether business leaders should engage with politics, but how and when they do so.
Bangladesh Chamber of Industries (BCI) later stated that the primary purpose of the meeting was to convey condolences on the passing of Khaleda Zia. Yet, as media reports indicate, the discussion went far beyond condolences. Nearly every sector reportedly outlined its challenges, and Tarique Rahman assured them that policy decisions under a BNP government would be based on consultations with the business community.
Here, Marshall McLuhan’s famous insight -- “the medium is the message” -- becomes particularly relevant. The structure, timing, venue, and publicity of the meeting all communicate meaning beyond the stated agenda. In the pre-election climate, such a gathering was as good as an endorsement, or at least an alignment, reinforcing old practices where business and political power converged before the people had spoken.
This raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: Did business leaders exercise adequate diligence and ethical judgment in this engagement?
Ethically, it is not inherently wrong for business chambers to meet political parties ahead of an election -- provided the engagement is non-partisan, transparent, and fair. Key principles should guide such interactions:
Non-partisanship: Business chambers must avoid actions that could be interpreted as favouring one party. An “all-parties” dialogue, rather than exclusive meetings with a single political actor, would better reflect neutrality.
Transparency: Clear protocols for political engagement should be publicly communicated. Without transparency, such meetings risk sending misleading signals to the broader corporate sector, potentially encouraging financial or other forms of support to specific parties -- intentionally or otherwise.
Equal access: All recognized political parties should be offered equal opportunities to hear business concerns and present their economic visions. Selective access distorts democratic fairness.
Avoiding conflicts of interest: Corporations are generally prohibited from making political contributions. Even non-monetary support -- such as services, facilities, or influence -- can be construed as improper if not handled with strict compliance and commercial valuation. Beyond legality, chambers must avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
The concern is not merely legal compliance, but public perception. In fragile democracies, perception often shapes reality. A meeting that appears to signal collusion or premature alignment can erode confidence in both electoral integrity and institutional independence.
Engagement between business and politics is, and should remain, a vital part of democratic advocacy. Businesses must articulate their needs, and politicians must listen. But in an election year -- especially one so consequential -- the burden of responsibility was higher. Fairness, balance, and transparency are not optional virtues but democratic necessities.
Bangladesh’s business leaders have an important role to play in shaping a future built on accountability and the rule of law. To do so credibly, they must ensure that their actions strengthen, rather than weaken, the nation’s desire for democratic ideals.
Emamul Haque is Editor, TV Metro Mail, Canada, and a former UN Staff Member.
