Every society longs for stability. The real foundation of stable governance is not the speeches of leaders or the slogans of political parties. It is the endurance of strong, impartial institutions that quietly hold the state together. Bangladesh, a country that has achieved impressive economic progress while navigating a turbulent political history, offers a vivid lesson on why institutions matter.

The ministries, agencies and bureaucratic processes that provide continuity despite instability are the real backbone of a state, not people. When governments change, when streets erupt in protest, or when international partners exert pressure, it is these structures that keep life moving forward. Farmers continue to work in the fields, the central bank manages monetary policy, schools open their gates to children, and hospitals treat the sick. Such continuity is possible because institutions anchor the state. Yet, stability requires more than mere survival. For institutions to be effective, they must be both stable and flexible.

Bangladesh’s constitutional framework envisioned a parliamentary democracy rooted in checks and balances. The Parliament, Judiciary, Election Commission and oversight institutions such as the Anti-Corruption Commission and Comptroller and Auditor General were created to ensure accountability and protect citizens’ rights. There have been moments of success. The Bangladesh Bank has often demonstrated competence and independence in managing the economy, helping to sustain consistent growth. Reforms in anti-money laundering and consumer protection have modernised the regulatory landscape. These are not small achievements. Yet they coexist with persistent weaknesses that threaten the resilience of governance.

The separation of powers remains fragile. The Judiciary, though formally independent, is frequently accused of executive influence, undermining its credibility. The Election Commission faces constant doubts about its neutrality, eroding trust in the democratic process. Oversight bodies designed to expose corruption often struggle to act without political interference. This paradox leaves Bangladesh vulnerable to recurring instability.

Concrete data illustrate the severity of the problem. The latest Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2024, released in February 2025, gives Bangladesh a score of just 23 out of 100, placing it 151st out of 180 countries worldwide. This is Bangladesh’s lowest score in the past 13 years. Within South Asia, Bangladesh ranks second-worst, ahead only of Afghanistan. The World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index 2024 placed Bangladesh 127th out of 142 countries, with especially low scores for constraints on government power, protection of fundamental rights and impartial justice. Perhaps most striking is the collapse in Voice and Accountability, where Bangladesh’s percentile rank was just 2.8 in 2023, placing it among the bottom 5% of all countries worldwide. This reflects severe restrictions on citizen participation, freedom of expression, and independent media.

Yet Bangladesh also presents a paradox that complicates the conventional wisdom linking strong institutions directly to stability. For two decades, the country achieved rapid economic growth and major social progress despite weak governance. Growth often exceeded 6%, poverty was reduced, life expectancy rose and women entered the workforce in greater numbers. In the meantime, corruption remained rampant and the rule of law weakened. It shows that development can sometimes emerge even in contexts where institutions are politicised or fragile. Factors such as remittance inflows, the global garments trade and the resilience of NGOs provided momentum that compensated for weak formal institutions.

But the paradox has its limits. The current slowdown in growth, with projections for FY 2024–25 between 3.3 and 3.97 per cent, signals that the old model may no longer hold. Economic dynamism cannot indefinitely outpace governance deficits. Weak institutions may not prevent short-term progress, but they undermine the long-term stability, fairness and resilience on which genuine national prosperity depends. In other words, Bangladesh’s story demonstrates both the temporary bypassing of institutional weakness and the eventual costs of failing to strengthen governance.

The weaknesses of Bangladesh’s institutions reflect three interlinked challenges. The first is political polarisation. The rivalry between major parties often translates into a winner-takes-all mentality, where control of institutions becomes the prize. The second is the weakening of accountability. When bodies like the Anti-Corruption Commission or the Comptroller and Auditor General cannot act impartially, impunity thrives. The third is a deficit of capacity and autonomy. Many institutions lack resources, professional training and independence, while excessive centralisation of executive power discourages innovation and responsiveness at the local level.

The stakes could not be higher in the present moment. The interim government faces intense scrutiny, both at home and abroad, as it attempts to steer the country through a delicate transition. Citizens demand credible elections, impartial justice and protection of rights. International partners emphasise governance reforms as conditions for cooperation and investment. But no matter how carefully political compromises are crafted, they will remain fragile unless the deeper institutional weaknesses are addressed.

The path forward requires deliberate investment in institutional resilience. Judicial independence must be safeguarded through transparent appointments and insulation from executive interference. The Election Commission must be strengthened with unquestionable autonomy, adequate resources and full legal authority to conduct elections that are widely trusted. Oversight bodies must be revitalised with genuine independence and protection from political retaliation, and their findings should be made publicly accessible. Civil service reform is essential so that recruitment, promotions and postings reflect merit and professional competence. Finally, decentralisation must move beyond rhetoric, empowering local governments with real authority and resources.

Bangladesh’s achievements in economic growth and social progress are undeniable, but economic success without institutional strength is a fragile foundation. Stability cannot be measured by GDP figures alone. It must be judged by whether institutions can manage disputes impartially, deliver services fairly and consistently uphold citizens’ rights. Stable governance does not mean the absence of conflict; it means that when conflicts arise, people trust institutions to resolve them justly. So, the decision that Bangladesh must make is obvious. If institutions remain politicised and weak, the country will continue to move from one crisis to another. But if Bangladesh invests now in building strong, impartial and accountable institutions, it can secure a stability that endures beyond political transitions. Strong institutions are vital. To a secure future for Bangladesh, they hold the key.

The writer is pursuing a Master's in Human Rights and Multiculturalism at University of South Eastern Norway