Research undertaken on citizen-state relations in Bangladesh during and after Covid-19 could not have foreseen the dramatic change that led to the fall of Bangladesh’s leader last month, but it provides valuable insights and lessons for the new government in the months ahead.
Citizen-state relations in Bangladesh have drastically changed in the last couple of months. A student movement that began in June grew into a nation-wide movement that led to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina resigning and fleeing the country. This period witnessed students and broader society coming to the streets and airing their grievances concerning job quotas, corruption, authoritarianism, justice and accountability through collective action. It led to the government, with the help of the police, coming down heavily on protesters and between July and August a total of 580 deaths and over 11,000 arrests were reported.
Now, with Nobel laureate Mohammad Yunus as the ‘chief advisor’ of a caretaker administration, the country is undergoing a transition to what some student movement leaders hope is a more democratic government.
Perceptions of corruption
We researched citizen-state relations in Bangladesh for the Covid-19 Learning, Evidence and Research Programme in Bangladesh (CLEAR) between 2022 and late 2023. When we synthesised the findings from that research, could we have foreseen this huge shift on the horizon? Not really. However, we did find that trust in and expectations of government were low, perceptions of corruption at the local level were high. The existing accountability mechanisms were also inadequate and fragmented, with the digitalisation of services not providing solutions to problems, and several groups needed extra help but the government was failing to support them.
Our synthesis report on accountability and citizen-state relations used five CLEAR studies: two associated to service delivery and accountability (the Feedback State and Rethinking Accountability); one focused on digital platforms and sexual and reproductive health rights (Digital Health Platforms); another on the ‘new poor’ and multidimensional poverty (Becoming Poor); and another that explored how new poor navigated governance needs using various formal and informal channels (Durdiner Diaries). All studies followed a mixed methods approach, with a combination of primary and secondary data – qualitative and quantitative – from digital ethnography to longitudinal surveys, qualitative panel studies, process tracing, validation workshops, and policy workshops.
Low expectations and little trust in government
While the government was committed to responding to citizens’ needs during the pandemic, these commitments were not reflected in citizen’s expectations from the state. Citizens had particularly low expectations from local government and trusted them less than the central government. In several locations citizens perceived government support to be a right, although some lacked the documentation or recognition of their citizenship rights.
Citizens’ low trust in local government made them not expect much from them. They perceived them to be corrupt and distributing social protection unfairly based on party affiliation and networks. Citizens reportedly expected the state to listen to them in principle and be more transparent about service delivery mechanisms. However, in reality, most citizens did not trust the state to address their complaints and therefore did not even voice their grievances.
Fragmented accountability mechanisms and limited voice
Curiously, during the pandemic there was more openness within the government to listen to citizens’ concerns and complaints. For instance, various accountability mechanisms and new channels were set up through which citizens could make themselves heard. Yet, these had varying levels of success in terms of use and responsiveness. On the one hand, these mechanisms were highly fragmented, with only a minority using hotlines and an even smaller number using online systems to report complaints. On the other hand, people were not using them because they did not believe it would make a difference. When claims and demands were sought, it was often through individualised ways, with direct engagement with local authorities (flawed as they were) remaining the default approach.
Digitalisation of governance not a panacea
The digitalisation of government services and social protection is often framed as a solution to human errors and corruption; CLEAR findings reveal that this comes with its own share of problems. Moving government services to a digital system can be vulnerable to lack of transparency on processes, rent-seeking behaviour, abuse in accessing digital services, and issues with data security. Without the necessary digital infrastructure and ecosystem which allows everyone to freely access services in an informed way, many citizens became dependent on intermediaries and rent-seeking actors to help them access these services. Additionally, the fragmented nature of accountability mechanisms led to many citizens being unaware of these and the state to lack a holistic picture on grievances.
The ones falling through the cracks
In every research location there was always a group systematically excluded from welfare services and emergency relief. Several people pointed out that their exclusion was linked to their poor relations or connections with local political authorities, or that local leaders did not care for them. Some of the key groups falling through the cracks of state responsiveness included the new poor, low-income urban residents, local migrant workers, digital illiterates, and those generally unaware of accountability mechanisms.
Despite having networks which enabled them to receive assistance through intermediaries and the government, many new poor struggled to access official help as they were often deemed ‘not poor enough’. Besides, many faced issues of shame and honour while seeking support due to their middle-class status. Another group suffering from social norms were the residents of low-income urban neighbourhoods, who experienced stigmatisation and discrimination especially when moving outside of their neighbourhoods to access services.
Unable to enrol their children in schools, being under constant surveillance of the police, turned away at public institutions when being honest about where they lived, many felt like second-rate citizens. Though emergency relief was available in urban areas during the pandemic, government social protection was patchy and difficult to access. Like the case of new poor, having the right connection and networks was paramount to access relief provided by community leaders and government during the pandemic.
Local migrant workers
One group that struggled to access these local networks were local migrant workers. Coming from other regions, they are not local voters and as such have limited value to local politicians. Many felt stuck between local governments in their home villages and their place of work, because processes were only partly digitised. This meant they had to travel back home for essential documents and had to pay additional ‘speed money’ to get things done quickly.
People who were digitally illiterate were most likely to be dependent on intermediaries to help them access digital services provided by the government. In several situations this increased their vulnerability to corruption, making them pay more than the government-mandates prices for accessing services. Finally, there were those unaware of accountability mechanisms. This happened because of a lack of awareness or clarity regarding which mechanisms to use for what type of demand, the fragmented nature of the mechanisms in place, as well as the lack of trust built by the government in these systems and in the people working to resolve the issues.
In conclusion, while the recent events in Bangladesh show the power of civil society and collective action in holding governments accountable, CLEAR findings revealed that several aspects relating to accountability mechanisms, trust, corruption, digitalisation of services and exclusion of groups need to be accounted for by the next government to build towards a more accountable, inclusive and democratic society.
