Parliamentary Democracy in Bangladesh: Evolution, Suitability and Enhancement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bangladesh's political history is marked by complexity and change, shaped by colonial legacies, the 1971 Liberation War, military interventions, authoritarian rule, and multiple democratic transitions, ending in a parliamentary representative democracy. This article explores the historical context, institutional performance, and socio-political role of parliamentary government in Bangladesh, using comparative data from other parliamentary and presidential systems. The research employs a qualitative, historical-comparative approach to analyze constitutional provisions, legislative procedures, executive-legislative relationships, judicial independence, and municipal government processes. The results show that Bangladesh's parliamentary democracy promotes collective ministerial responsibility, legislative oversight, flexible governance, inclusive citizen participation, and grassroots engagement, while reducing risks linked to centralized presidential power, such as authoritarianism, political deadlock, and unaccountable governance. A comparison with countries like the United Kingdom, India, Germany, and Canada indicates that parliamentary systems generally have stronger institutions, proactive leadership, and less corruption. The findings suggest that Bangladesh's parliamentary system fits well with its socio-political environment and historical path. Reforms like strengthening parliamentary committees, decentralizing governance, fostering intra-party democracy, increasing women's participation, and enhancing accountability mechanisms could further strengthen democratic governance, ensuring transparency, responsiveness, and long-term socioeconomic and political growth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".