Published: 12:08 AM, 13 October 2026
Mandate to Govern, Not a Licence to Rule
Shahidul Alam Swapan
One of the central questions of democracy is whether electoral victory provides a mandate to govern or a licence to rule. The distinction is more than semantic. It defines the relationship between power and accountability. For Bangladesh, born from the denial of an electoral mandate in 1971, the issue remains particularly significant.
The country's independence was rooted in a simple democratic principle: the will of the people must be respected. The refusal of Pakistan's ruling establishment to honour the outcome of the 1970 election transformed a constitutional dispute into a liberation struggle. Bangladesh emerged not merely as a new state, but as a political project founded upon popular sovereignty.
Yet independence did not eliminate the challenge of power. It merely shifted it to a new arena.
Since 1971, governments of different political persuasions have enjoyed varying degrees of public support. The more important question has been how that support has been interpreted. A democratic mandate authorizes governments to formulate policy, implement programs and administer the state. It does not place them above scrutiny, weaken the rights of the opposition or diminish the importance of independent institutions.
Like many postcolonial democracies, Bangladesh has often struggled with this distinction. Electoral victories have frequently been viewed as broad endorsements of all subsequent actions. In such circumstances, criticism risks being portrayed as obstruction and opposition as disloyalty. The inevitable result is a concentration of power that weakens institutional balance.
The challenge is not unique to any one government or political party. It has been a recurring feature of the country's political evolution.
The early post-independence years were marked by enormous pressures. Economic devastation, institutional fragility and political instability encouraged a strong centralized state. Some regarded this as necessary for nation-building. Others saw the beginnings of a political culture that prioritized authority over accountability.
The subsequent era of military rule demonstrated a different reality: stability without democratic legitimacy is rarely sustainable. The mass movement that restored parliamentary democracy in 1990 reflected a national demand not only for elections but also for accountable governance and constitutional balance.
However, democratic restoration did not necessarily translate into democratic consolidation.
Since the 1990s, Bangladesh has struggled with a winner-takes-all political culture. Electoral victories have often encouraged governing parties to maximize control over state institutions, while defeated parties have frequently questioned the legitimacy of political processes. This cycle has limited the development of institutions capable of commanding confidence across political divides.
Yet strong institutions are the true foundation of democratic stability. Elections determine who governs; institutions determine how power is exercised. When courts, electoral bodies, parliament, anti-corruption agencies and the civil service are perceived as politically neutral, public trust increases. When they are viewed through partisan lenses, legitimacy suffers regardless of electoral outcomes.
Bangladesh's economic progress adds an important dimension to this debate. Over recent decades, the country has achieved notable gains in growth, poverty reduction, infrastructure and human development. These accomplishments deserve recognition. They demonstrate the capacity of elected governments to pursue long-term national objectives and improve living standards.
But development alone cannot be the sole measure of democratic success.
History shows that economic progress is most durable when accompanied by transparency, accountability and institutional credibility. Citizens increasingly expect governments not only to deliver results but also to explain decisions, tolerate criticism and uphold constitutional norms. Development strengthens legitimacy when it complements accountability; it weakens legitimacy when it is used to substitute for it.
This expectation is becoming more pronounced as Bangladesh's population becomes younger, better educated and more connected. Citizens are no longer concerned solely with what governments achieve. They are equally interested in how power is exercised and whether institutions function impartially.
That reality points to the next stage of Bangladesh's democratic journey: institutional reform.
The country's challenge is no longer simply to hold elections. It is to build institutions strong enough to ensure that no government can exercise power without effective oversight. Electoral credibility requires an Election Commission trusted by all stakeholders. Parliamentary accountability requires meaningful debate and scrutiny. Judicial independence demands protections from political pressure. The civil service must be increasingly professional rather than partisan, and watchdog institutions must be empowered to perform their duties without fear or favour.
Such reforms should not be viewed as obstacles to government. On the contrary, they strengthen government by enhancing public confidence in democratic processes. Strong institutions protect both citizens and elected leaders from the instability that arises when trust breaks down.
More than five decades after independence, Bangladesh has much to be proud of. Yet the enduring promise of 1971 remains incomplete. The liberation struggle sought not merely self-rule but accountable rule. It was fought to establish the supremacy of the people's will, not the permanence of any political force.
Every government must therefore remember that a mandate is a temporary trust, not a permanent possession. Electoral victories confer authority, but constitutional democracies endure because that authority is restrained by institutions that outlast individual leaders and parties. Bangladesh's future stability, prosperity and democratic maturity will depend less on who wins the next election than on whether the country can build institutions capable of commanding respect across all political divides. For a nation born from the denial of democratic rights, there can be no greater safeguard of its future than ensuring that every mandate remains a mandate to govern, never a licence to rule.
Shahidul Alam Swapan is a
Switzerland-based private bank
financial crime compliance specialist, columnist and poet. He can be reached
