Bangladesh - Belgium

Citizens’ Voice and Accountability Evaluation – Bangladesh Country Case Study
Annex C. Context analysis
The literature review and intervention analysis undertaken by ODI suggests that the context is
crucial for understanding and hence assessing CVA (ODI Evaluation Framework, August 2007).
The Methodological Guidance thus requires ‘a thorough analysis of the socio-political and
economic context ‘as an important benchmark for assessing the relevance of CV and A
interventions in the specific context where they take place’ Thus the main purpose of the context
analysis is to consider the linkages (or lack of them) between CVA interventions and the political
and socio-economic context where they take place’.
C.1. Political and institutional framework
Legal framework
Bangladesh’s Constitution (1972) guarantees protection of basic human rights, including freedom
of assembly and expression. Bangladesh has ratified all the major International treaties related to
human rights.
The Bangladeshi legal system is regarded as inefficient and lacks accountability. It has been
accused of politicisation and corruption. The Constitution calls for the independence of the
Judiciary but the lower courts (until end of 2007) have operated under the control of the Executive
who decide on appointments, transfers, and promotion of lower court judges and magistrates. The
High Court and Supreme Court have also been tarnished by partisan politics as appointments
have been traditionally made by the President along party lines. Several attempts to separate the
Judiciary by successive governments made little progress due to lack of political will, and despite a
1999 Supreme Court ruling. Progress on this has finally been made under the current Caretaker
Government
Article 39 (2) of the Constitution confirms “a) the right of every citizen to freedom of speech and
expression and b) freedom of the press are guaranteed.” However, there remain serious issues
with regard to rights to information. The Official Secrets Act (1923), the Evidence Act (1872), Penal
Code (1860), Government Servants (Conduct) Act (1979) the Code of Criminal Procedure (1960),
the Rules of Business (1996) and the Oath of Secrecy are all laws which restrict people's rights of
access to information. Article 19 of the Government Servants (Conduct) Act says: “A government
servant shall not, unless generally or specially empowered by the government in this behalf,
disclose directly or indirectly to government servants belonging to other Ministries, Divisions or
Departments, or to non-official persons or to the Press, the contents of any official document or
communicate any information which has come into his possession in the course of his official
duties, or has been prepared or collected by him in the course of those duties, whether from official
sources or otherwise.” This Oath has effectively blocked any forms of disclosure. In 2002, the
Law Commission drafted a Rights to Information Act but this has never been processed for
enactment. Currently, a national movement comprising several civil society organisations and
networks is actively demanding for the right to information.
The legal framework for participation is outlined in the Constitution as essentially the right to vote in
five yearly national and local elections. The 1991, 1996 and 2001 National elections were regarded
by international observers as ‘free and fair’ and are presided over by the Election Commission.
Other provisions for public consultation and inclusion in decision making bodies are largely
recommendations rather than legally binding. At the lowest level of local government (Union
Parishad (UP)), there are such provisions (see section on local government below) but as UPs are
dependent on central government and local elite for financial support there is little incentive to
encourage citizen participation.
61