Introduction: Governance consists of the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised. This includes the process by which governments are selected, monitored, and replaced. The capacity of the government to effectively formulate and implement sound policies, the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them. Although the concept of governance is widely discussed among policymakers and scholars, there is as yet no strong consensus around a single definition of governance or institutional quality. Various authors and organizations have produced a wide array of definitions. Some are so broad that they cover almost anything, such as the definition of “rules, enforcement mechanisms, and organizations” offered by the World Bank’s 2002 World Development Report “Building Institutions for Markets”. Others more narrowly focus on public sector management issues, including the definition proposed by the World Bank in 1992 as “the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social resources for development”. In specific areas of governance such as the rule of law, there are extensive debates among scholars over “thin” versus “thick” definitions, where the former focus narrowly on whether existing rules and laws are enforced, while the latter emphasizes more the justice of the content of the laws. The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) are a long‐standing research project to develop cross‐country indicators of governance. The WGI consist of six composite indicators of broad dimensions of governance covering over 200 countries since 1996: Voice and Accountability, Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism, Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law, and Control of Corruption. These indicators are based on several hundred variables obtained from 31 different data sources.
Voice and Accountability: capturing perceptions of the extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and a free media.
Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism: capturing perceptions of the likelihood that the government will be destabilized or overthrown by unconstitutional or violent means, including politically motivated violence and terrorism.
Government Effectiveness: capturing perceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political pressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government’s commitment to such policies.
Regulatory Quality: capturing perceptions of the ability of the government to formulate and implement sound policies and regulations that permit and promote private sector development.
Rule of Law: capturing perceptions of the extent to which agents have confidence in and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, property rights, the police, and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime and violence.
Control of Corruption: capturing perceptions of the extent to which public power is exercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as “capture” of the state by elites and private interests.
The position of Bangladesh according to the Governance indicators
The journey of Bangladesh government began in 1972 after the return of Bangabondhu. The country has seen its fair share of civil unrest, military coups, political division and etc. these struggles have put Bangladesh at the lowest levels in the Governance indicator index. Poverty and corruption have always been the main obstacle in our country. According to the indicators set by the World bank, Bangladesh does not have a good position in term of good governance. In fact, Bangladesh at it best among the lowest 40% of the countries. According to the data obtained from the world bank-
| Governance Indicator | Rank of Bangladesh in 2000 | Rank of Bangladesh in 2010 |
| Voice and Accountability | Lowest 41.5 | Lowest 31.4 |
| Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism | Lowest 26.9 | Lowest 6.6 |
| Government Effectiveness | Lowest 38.3 | Lowest 21.1 |
| Regulatory Quality | Lowest 39.4 | Lowest 14.9 |
| Rule of Law | Lowest 26.4 | Lowest 19.8 |
| Control of Corruption | Lowest 40.2 | Lowest 7.9 |
The situation has not gotten better in the recent years either. Poverty and corruption still influence the country on a large scale even to the central government level despite all the efforts from the government to tackle these issues. Current position of Bangladesh concerning the Good Government Indexes are shown Below.
Voice and Accountability in Bangladesh: In recent years, a disconnection between the government and the public and media can be seen after the governments treatment of students protests in 2018. Modest successes in achieving the MDG targets are tempered by recognition of a growing divide between the rich and poor and urban and rural populations. In recent estimates, the annual growth of incomes of the poorest is put at 0.88%, compared with 3.92% for the richest. Political tensions for a long time and the governments carelessness led to a low score in 2020. According to tradeeconomics.com, Bangladesh had a score of -0.7 on a scale from -2.5-2.5.
Political Stability and Absence of Violence in Bangladesh: Bangladesh is not safe from political instability and violence. A local human rights organization explores that over three-hundred people were killed and nearly nine thousand others were injured in politically motivated violence during 2005. In 2006, the country experienced terrible labour unrest of causing 300 factories damaging, nearly 100 million dollars loss and hundreds of death and injuries. In addition to that, sea and airports were mostly in stagnant position due to political anarchy and chaos in that period and it is very normal scenario in every Regime.
Government Effectiveness in Bangladesh: According to theworldeconomics,com, data for Bangladesh from 1996 to 2019 shows that, The average value for Bangladesh during that period was -0.73 points with a minimum of -0.91 points in 2005 and a maximum of -0.44 points in 1998. The latest value from 2019 is -0.74 points. For comparison, the world average in 2019 based on 193 countries is -0.02 points.
Regulatory Quality in Bangladesh: According to theworldeconomics,com, data for Bangladesh from 1996 to 2019 shows that, The average value for Bangladesh during that period was -0.91 points with a minimum of -1.13 points in 2004 and a maximum of -0.8 points in 2016. The latest value from 2019 is -0.93 points. For comparison, the world average in 2019 based on 193 countries is -0.03 points.
Rule of Law in Bangladesh: Bangladesh’s score in overall rule of law performance has remained static – at the bottom end of the World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index – for the last four years the country, however, dropped two notches to rank 115 among 128 countries and jurisdictions in the WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 as two more countries were included in the index last year.
Control of Corruption in Bangladesh: data for Bangladesh from shows that, from 1996 to 2019. The average value for Bangladesh during that period was -1.06 points with a minimum of -1.5 points in 2004 and a maximum of -0.72 points in 1998. The latest value from 2019 is -0.99 points. For comparison, the world average in 2019 based on 193 countries is -0.04 points.
Conclusion: We have come a long way since the independence. facing many difficulties and hardships on the journey. Political unrests, protests, poverty, corruption have shaped our country the way it is today. However, if both the government and the citizens work together, we can change the current situation in our country. The government must tackle corruption at all cost, and it must be more transparent to the public and media. Everyone must obey the law and the citizens must be aware of their rights. This way we can gradually change the current situation in our country.
