Is dividing the country into four provinces logical?

The interim government of Bangladesh formed an 11-member Administrative Reform Commission in October 2024, led by Abdul Muid Chowdhury, to recommend ways to make public administration more people-centric, accountable, efficient, and impartial. On  February 15, 2025, the Commission submitted its recommendations, key among which is transitioning Bangladesh from unitary to a federal system, adopting a provincial government structure.

The Commission suggested forming four provinces based on the old divisions of Dhaka, Chattogram, Rajshahi, and Khulna, considering Dhaka as a centrally administered Capital City Government. Each province will have its own legislature, executive branch, and a bench of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court. The central government will retain control over defence, foreign relations, internal and border policy, finance, currency, international trade, foreign investment, railways, highways, airports, seaports, energy, power, and nuclear energy. Other matters will be managed by the provincial governments. Some areas, like higher education and health policy, will involve both central and provincial governments.

Since independence, Bangladesh has had a unitary system of government. Transitioning to a federal system is a complex process having significant political, economic, social, cultural, geographical, and national security implications. Although these recommendations are currently at proposal stage, they will be finalised based on discussions with political parties and national consensus. Nonetheless, these recommendations will serve as the primary basis for dialogue and building consensus. Therefore, it is crucial to review and analyse them critically.

Let us first understand what a federal system of government is and when is it desirable. Federalism involves multiple levels or tiers of government, with political and administrative powers constitutionally shared among these levels. A key feature of federalism is that each level of government has its own legislative, executive, and judicial structures and institutions.

Federalism offers the advantage of decentralising power by distributing authority across multiple tiers of government, thereby limiting excessive centralization. However, political scientists note that while federalism aids decentralisation, it is a complex system. It can create significant obstacles in policy formulation and implementation, slow down government action, and exacerbate conflicts among different government tiers and regions.

William H. Riker, in his book "Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance" (1964), argued that federalism can weaken national unity, encourage separatist movements, destabilise democracy, and increase national security risks. Similarly, Arend Lijphart, in his book "Patterns of Democracy" (1999), reached similar conclusions after analysing 36 countries' government types, structures, and their effectiveness. George Anderson, in his book on Federalism: An Introduction (2008), also noted that "Federalism is not always the best system of government, and it is not suitable for all countries." The need for federalism arises due to differences in language, culture, religion, history, tradition, ethnic characteristics, and geography.

Bangladesh is a small and homogeneous country in terms of language, culture, history, tradition, ethnicity, geography and connectivity. Bangladesh does not exhibit the typical characteristics that necessitate federalism. The obvious question arises, what is the rationale behind the recommendation for a federal system of governance in Bangladesh?  The Administrative Reform Commission has put forward two key arguments: first, to prevent excessive centralisation of power at the center by decentralising power, and second, to enhance the quality and efficiency of public services through administrative decentralisation. Additionally, the commission highlights the need for a federal system to manage public service delivery in a large populous country like Bangladesh.

Now, let us examine whether the type of government -- unitary or federal -- affects the quality of democracy or not? While conventional wisdom suggests that federalism fosters democracy, real-world examples do not support this claim. Countries like Norway, the United Kingdom, Japan, and South Korea, despite having unitary systems, rank highly on the democracy index. In contrast, federal countries such as Russia, Nigeria, Venezuela, and Pakistan rank much lower, indicating that governance structure alone does not determine the democratic quality.

Venezuela, despite having 23 provinces with state governments, saw authoritarian rule under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro, who undermined democratic institutions through election fraud. Similarly, Nigeria, a federal republic with 36 states, experienced nearly 30 years of military and civilian authoritarian rule. Pakistan, with its four-province federal structure, has also struggled with prolonged authoritarianism, preventing its democratic institutions from gaining a strong footing. These examples illustrate that a federal system alone does not guarantee the democratic governance.

India, one of the world's largest federal states with 28 states, has seen increasing centralisation of power under Prime Minister Narendra Modi since 2014. Despite infrastructural development, India has declined on the democracy index, with accusations of weakening democratic institutions and undermining state autonomy. A study published by Cambridge University Press found that federalism has not prevented democratic backsliding. Comparative analysis shows that 22 per cent of federal states have experienced democratic backsliding, compared to 20 per cent of unitary states, indicating a slightly higher rate of decline in federal systems.

Let us now examine the relationship between the type of government system and the quality of public services. Real-world experiences show that while federalism decentralises power, it does not directly correlate with better public services. Countries like Nigeria, Brazil, and India, despite having federal systems, struggle with poor public services, low bureaucratic efficiency, and widespread corruption. In contrast, unitary states such as France, Japan, and South Korea provide high-quality public services, have lower corruption, and ensure faster decision-making and implementation. This suggests that governance quality depends more on institutional effectiveness than the type of system in place.

When comparing public services between the United States and France, it is observed that the quality of public services in the unitary state of France is better than in the United States. In the U.S., many people are deprived of healthcare, whereas in France, healthcare is available at comparatively lower costs. Similarly, France's public transportation system is more people-oriented, offering affordable options.In critical areas such as disaster management, the U.S. has failed to provide the desired level of public service due to  lack of coordination between central and state governments. For example, the management of Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) highlighted delays in effective disaster management measures due to a lack of timely coordination among federal, state, and local governments, resulting in significant loss of life and property.

The Government Effectiveness Index evaluates the quality of public services, civil service competence, and the effectiveness of policy formulation and implementation. The 2023 Index shows that unitary states like Singapore, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, and the United Arab Emirates rank higher in government effectiveness compared to many federal states.Although, the Reform Commission cites Nepal as an example in support of a federal system, Bangladesh is ahead of Nepal in terms of government effectiveness. These findings suggest that unitary governments can be more effective in delivering public services.

The argument for a federal system based on Bangladesh's large population lacks justification. The Commission suggests a provincial governance system to improve public service delivery for 170 million people. However, countries with larger populations, such as China and Indonesia, provide better public services without a federal system. Similarly, Japan, France, and Vietnam, despite having large populations, ensure high-quality public services through unitary governance. This suggests that population size alone does not necessitate federalism, making the Commission's argument unconvincing.

The constitution has fundamental characteristics that cannot be altered under the basic structure doctrine, which limits the scope of constitutional amendments. While the legislature holds the power to amend the constitution, this power is not absolute -- it cannot make changes that undermine its core principles. This doctrine safeguards key elements such as sovereignty, democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental rights, with the Supreme Court serving as its guardian. India adopted this doctrine in 1973 through the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case (Writ Petition (Civil) 135 of 1970) and Bangladesh followed in 1989 with the Eighth Amendment case (Anwar Hossain Chowdhury vs. Bangladesh Government). The Supreme Court has since upheld that parliament cannot amend the constitution in a way that erodes its basic structure. Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed further clarified that amendment means refinement, not abolition, reinforcing the principle that the constitution's fundamental structures remain inviolable.

Bangladesh's constitution establishes a unitary system of government as part of its fundamental structure. The Commission's recommendation to transition to a provincial system represents a major alteration to this structure. However, under the basic structure doctrine, the legislature lacks the authority to implement such a fundamental change. The process of transitioning to a federal system is highly complex and would require direct consent of the people, making its implementation legally and procedurally challenging.

Experience from various countries shows that there is no direct correlation between a federal system and the quality of democracy or public services. The argument for adopting a federal system in Bangladesh lacks strong justification. Both unitary and federal systems have their respective advantages and challenges. Bangladesh is a homogenous state in terms of language, culture, history, tradition, ethnic characteristics, and geography. The simplistic belief that a federal system will automatically enhance democracy or good governance is unrealistic.

Transitioning from a unitary to a federal system is a complex process with significant political, economic, administrative, geographical, and socio-cultural implications. Administrative divisions have the potential to create social, political, economic, and psychological divisions that could destabilise the country and pose a threat to national security. Proposing such a radical transformation -- shifting from a unitary to a federal system and dividing the country into four provinces -- without thoroughly evaluating its far-reaching consequences is not a prudent approach. A careful and comprehensive assessment of the political, economic, administrative, geographical, and socio-cultural impacts is essential to avoid unintended consequences.

Golam Rasul, PhD is Professor, Department of Economics, International University of Business Agriculture and Technology (IUBAT), Dhaka and former civil servant. golam. grasul@gmail.com