Introduction
There is considerable disagreement among scholars about the nexus between public opinion and public policy in democratic countries. Some maintain that public opinion often finds reflection in policy decisions (Burstein, 2003), while others attribute little power to the public — although they concede that governments sometimes respond to it (Block, 1987; Domhoff, 1998; Korpi, 1989). A range of policy research further suggests that the public plays only a modest role in policy formulation and implementation (Sabatier, 1991). Policy theorists have described the “public” as a set of marginal actors with minimal influence in the process. We argue that the congruence between public opinion and policy change is a complex phenomenon that varies across policy contexts. Although substantial empirical evidence has demonstrated a strong relationship between public opinion and policy in developed countries — particularly in the United States (Benjamin, 1994) — such data remain scarce for developing countries. Bangladesh is no exception in this regard. There is little to no empirical evidence examining the exact relationship between public opinion and policy decisions in the country. The current study seeks to address this gap by investigating the role of public opinion in the policy-making process in Bangladesh.
Bangladesh celebrated fifty-three years of independence in 2024, but democracy was restored in the country only about three decades ago, in 1991. With democratization in 1991, policy making in Bangladesh was expected to become more pro-people, shifting power from the bureaucracy to elected politicians (Shahan and Jahan, 2020). However, the extent to which policy change reflects fluctuations in public opinion remains unclear. We need to determine, first, whether policy makers consider public opinion and whether policy evolves in response to feedback from the public. Furthermore, if policy does change due to public opinion, we need to assess whether these changes are substantive or merely ritualistic. If policy does not respond much to public opinion, we must ask why this disconnect occurs.
To address these questions, this paper aims to: (i) identify the mechanisms available in Bangladesh to channel public opinion into policy; (ii) assess the degree of influence public opinion exerts on policy; and (iii) explore factors that cause variations in the influence of public opinion on policy. It is worth noting that this paper focuses on the period from 2010 to 2024.
- Methodology of the Study
The study relies on qualitative data collected from both secondary and primary sources. Secondary data were obtained through a review of reports published in a leading national daily newspaper (the Daily Star) between 2010 and 2024, as well as a survey of relevant scholarly articles from national and international journals, policy documents, and survey reports. Primary data were gathered through 40 semi-structured key informant interviews (KIIs) with senior civil servants (20), politicians from both ruling and opposition parties (10), and public engagement practitioners (10). The respondents were selected based on their expertise and experience in the field of public policy and civic engagement. All the respondents have provided informed verbal consent for providing information in interviews as the requirement of the ethics committee of the Department. The data were manually analyzed by matching information from the interviews with secondary data collected through the documentary survey. Triangulation was employed to help validate and enhance the reliability of the findings.
- Public Opinion and Public Policy: The Framework of Analysis
Understanding the link between public opinion and its impact on policy begins with clarifying the terms ‘public opinion’ and the ‘influence of public opinion on policy.’ Public opinion generally refers to the views of the general population on a specific issue. Sometimes, grassroots organizations engaged in policy advocacy are viewed as representing public opinion. The key consideration is how representative these organizations are. If such organizations reflect the perspectives of those affected by policy — for example, through surveys or other representative methods — their positions may be considered a reflection of public opinion. Public opinion is typically channeled through various forms of engagement, including opinion polls, websites, NGOs, media, and interactive platforms such as dialogues, seminars, and workshops.
There is a lack of reliable measures to determine the degree of influence that public opinion exerts on public policy. Researchers (Decker and Ladikas, 2004; Hennen and Ladikas, 2009) have classified this influence into three main categories: raising knowledge, forming attitudes and opinions, and initiating actions. The first two are described as ‘conceptual impacts,’ while the last falls under ‘instrumental impacts’ (Phillipson et al., 2012).
The degree of influence that public opinion exerts on public policy varies across countries and contexts. Citizens can take part in the policy process either directly or indirectly. Direct participation involves attempts to influence policy through face-to-face meetings or other forms of personal contact with policy makers, while indirect participation refers to actions by individuals to influence policy by choosing their representatives in government through elections (Buse et al., 2005).
Studies have identified various factors that determine the influence of public opinion on public policy. The degree of public engagement in the policy process largely depends on a country’s political system. Among different political systems, liberal democracy provides greater opportunities for popular participation (Parker and Richter, 2018) through mechanisms such as representative government, fair electoral processes, and a free media (Sartori, 1987), in contrast to authoritarian or populist regimes, where participation is tightly controlled by the state. Some theorists, however, have recognized that democratic governments sometimes ignore the public (Page and Shapiro, 1983). Policy may respond to public opinion but remain influenced by other factors (Burstein, 2003). Zaller (1992) and others (Glynn et al., 1999) argue that on many issues the public may lack well-informed or coherent political opinions, allowing policy to be driven by other forces. Furthermore, some scholars assert that the relationship between public policy and public opinion is undermined by the power of interest organizations, political parties, and economic elites (Aldrich, 1995; Dahl, 1989; Mueller, 1999; Stimson et al., 1995; Page and Shapiro, 1983; Smith, 2000).
Some studies indicate that socio-cultural factors also influence the degree of public engagement in the policy process. Andrain (1994) notes that the actions of political leaders and the level of citizen participation are determined by a political system composed of three analytical dimensions: sociopolitical structures, cultural values, and individual behaviors. Factors such as literacy rate, culture of participation, and the level of trust and confidence in government can be considered key socio-cultural determinants of public engagement in policy making.
Policy theories have yet to reach a definitive conclusion on the role of the public in policy making. Since the emergence of public policy as a field of study, a key challenge has been understanding how the “public” influences policy decisions. However, a review of the existing literature on policy theories has led us to employ an influential policy process theory — the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) — in conjunction with the Pathway Model of policy making to analyze and better understand the role of public opinion in policy making in Bangladesh.
The ACF, originally developed by Paul Sabatier and Hank Jenkins Smith in the 1980s (Jenkins -Smith 1982; Sabatier 1986, 1988; Sabatier and Jenkins- Smith 1993), with a wider focus on the causal explanations of the policy process labels public as an indirect player in the policy process. The ACF suggests that policy operates within a subsystem where two to four advocacy coalitions — including government agencies, interest groups, and policy experts — form around a shared set of core values and beliefs. One of the foundational assumptions of the theory is that the set of relevant actors include any person who seek to influence a policy subsystem. Accordingly, engaged citizens without any formal organizational affiliation may also be the part of the coalition. Involvement of public often manifests through advocacy groups representing specific interests or values. The groups employ various strategies to influence the decisions of government. They get engaged in policy debate, competing and compromising on solutions based on their core values and beliefs.
The ACF posits that the role of these actors in policy making is influenced by two main factors: relatively “stable” system parameters — which define the context within which policy operates — and “dynamic” (or system) events — which are external to the policy subsystem and may fluctuate over time. The “stable” parameters include the fundamental attributes of the policy area, the distribution of natural resources in society, deep-rooted socio-cultural values and structures, and the legal framework. In contrast, the “dynamic” features encompass changes in socioeconomic conditions and technology, fluctuations in public opinion, shifting policy coalitions, and impacts from other policy subsystems. The current study applies the ACF in a customized form by adapting these factors to explain the influence of public opinion on policy making in Bangladesh (see Figure 1).
With a view to understanding the competition among coalitions — as suggested by the ACF — as an intermediary factor determining the degree of influence on policy decisions, we have drawn on the pathway model of policy making. This model posits that policy processes involve multiple actors, each with varying power depending on their ability to mobilize support for their preferred policy option. The theory identifies four pathways for policy making: the pluralist, partisan, expert, and symbolic pathways. The pluralist pathway emphasizes policy making as a process of adjustment among competing interest groups, with limited direct involvement from the broader public (Conlan et al., 2014). The partisan pathway highlights the role of a strong party leader in shaping policy agendas. The expert pathway underscores the domination of policy experts and professionals in the policy process. The symbolic pathway, on the other hand, is driven by the power of ideas that promote certain notions of right or wrong.
Combining the above-mentioned theories and the review of literature on public opinion, the current study develops an analytical framework for analyzing the influence of public opinion on policy making in Bangladesh (see Figure 1). Drawing on the ACF, the framework shows that certain stable features of the context — such as the basic attributes of the policy area, fundamental sociocultural values and social structures, and the constitutional or legal framework — alongside dynamic events, like a change in the governing coalition, act as determinants of the influence of public opinion on policy making. As the ACF suggests, the interaction between these factors either promotes or inhibits policy change, depending on the degree of support mobilized by competing groups or coalitions, including the public. Furthermore, as the pathway model highlights, the impact of public opinion on policy may be either conceptual or instrumental, depending on the ability of groups to bargain and demonstrate their preferences.
Figure 1: Analytical Framework (place it here)
3.Findings of The Study
Channeling Public Opinion into Public Policy: The Linking Pins
In Western countries, direct mechanisms such as face-to-face consultations, referendums, and opinion polls are commonly used to incorporate public opinion into policymaking. In contrast, the current study finds that such mechanisms—particularly opinion polls and referendums—are absent at the national level in Bangladesh. Although some external agencies and development partners conduct limited opinion surveys to assess stakeholder perceptions of their programs, their impact on policymaking remains minimal. Notable examples include the World Bank Group’s Country Opinion Survey and annual public opinion surveys on development issues conducted since 2018 by an international organization called the Centre for Insights in Survey Research. However, due to their narrow focus, these surveys are rarely used in policy formulation. Significantly, none of the interviewed bureaucrats or politicians cited them as sources of public opinion on policy matters.
However, the current study finds that, depending on the issue, certain indirect mechanisms are used in Bangladesh to elicit public opinion. A bureaucrat observed, “In recent times, it is rare to frame any policy without first seeking public opinion.” Mechanisms that facilitate this process include consultations, dialogues, workshops, seminars with stakeholders, institutional websites, media, NGOs (Non-Government Organizations) and public demonstrations.
The government organizes consultation dialogues and workshops at regional or national levels, typically inviting civil society members, development partners, journalists, and opinion leaders. A bureaucrat mentioned, “Consultation workshops are generally effective in contributing to policy drafts.” For example, university teachers were consulted for appointment guidelines, and school teachers were consulted for primary education upgrades. However, direct public participation in these workshops is rare. A bureaucrat explained, “The public typically participates indirectly through Members of Parliament (MPs), local representatives, and civil society members.” For instance, to gather stakeholder inputs for preparing the Urban Health Care Strategy 2014 (GoB, 2014), the Ministry of Health organized seven regional workshops across administrative divisions and a national workshop in Dhaka. These workshops were attended by the representatives of local government bodies, NGOs, and other stakeholders, through whom public values and perspectives were indirectly represented.
At the national level, stakeholder consultations and expert group meetings (EGMs) are held. Zafarullah and Banik (2015) revealed that public engagement in policy making in Bangladesh is largely limited to consultations with interest groups, primarily through official or ad hoc committees. EGMs aim to exchange information, provide inputs on policy drafts, and make recommendations. Once a policy draft is prepared, it is typically posted on the website of the concerned ministry.
Almost every ministry has a website where policy documents are posted and opinions are sought to make policy making process more inclusive. For example, the National Health Policy 2011, National Urban Health Strategy 2014, and Community Clinic Health Support Trust Act 2018 were all posted online, although opinions were mainly received from specific stakeholder groups. The National Urban Health Strategy 2014 notes that after the draft strategy was prepared, it was published on the Local Government Division’s website and feedback was invited from concerned stakeholders. Comments were predominantly received from bureaucrats in different ministries and departments and were incorporated into the national strategy wherever possible (GoB, 2014).
An expert committee is also formed by the concerned ministry to review the opinions received through the website. “The public rarely provides opinions on all issues, and even when they do, policy makers often do not take them into account because their submissions are seldom well-articulated,” a bureaucrat explained during an interview.
Community-based organizations (CBOs) and NGOs also communicate public opinion to policy makers. For instance, BRAC, a leading community-based NGO in Bangladesh, is engaged in policy advocacy on health, education, and other social issues. BRAC identifies emerging issues from community experiences and conveys them to policy makers through periodic publications and face-to-face interactions.
Social media sometimes serve as a medium for communicating public opinion to policy makers. The public reacts to policy decisions on social media if they are familiar with the issue and directly affected by it. However, a bureaucrat observed, “People usually react to policy decisions on social media but rarely offer constructive suggestions, so these opinions rarely influence policy.”
Public opinion is also expressed through protests, demonstrations, and other forms of activism, which help sensitize policy makers for or against a policy issue, often leaving a visible impact on policy. The policy makers’ response depends on the scale and intensity of these demonstrations.
Impact/Influence of Public Opinion on Public Policy
Findings from the current study identify three indirect mechanisms through which public opinion is communicated to policymakers, each with the potential for both conceptual and instrumental impacts on policy. These mechanisms include stakeholder consultations, NGO advocacy, and activism by large or influential groups.
Politicians, senior civil servants, and NGO officials acknowledged in interviews that stakeholder consultation workshops often generate valuable ideas. These workshops raise awareness, enhance knowledge, influence attitudes, and shape opinions among policymakers. However, their outcomes depend largely on how feasible policymakers perceive the proposed issues to be. For instance, the importance of a referral health system and the need to reduce out-of-pocket (OOP) payments have been repeatedly emphasized in workshops by stakeholders and health experts, helping to sensitize policymakers—though concrete policy action on these issues remains pending.
Evidence also suggests that consultation workshops have had instrumental impacts on policy. For example, the goal of ensuring primary health care for all—widely discussed among stakeholders and health experts—was adopted as a core objective in the National Health Policy 2011. A health bureaucrat noted in an interview that the policy focus on emergency services and non-communicable diseases similarly emerged from a series of stakeholder workshops. Likewise, the National Education Policy 2010 introduced a unified curriculum for key subjects—Bengali, English, and Madrasa (religious studies)—across all primary schools, directly resulting from extensive stakeholder deliberations.
NGO advocacy serves as a powerful mechanism for translating people’s needs into policy action. A BRAC official noted, “The government sometimes approaches BRAC to understand community perceptions and expectations about health needs.” BRAC has played a significant role in shaping key policies, including the Community-Based Post-Natal Care and the Infant and Young Child Feeding Strategy Model, both later adopted by the government. It also piloted an integrated mental health and primary health care model, which contributed to the National Mental Health Strategic Plan 2020–2030. However, smaller NGOs often lack the resources and influence to impact policy at the same scale as large organizations like BRAC.
Protests and demonstrations can have a significant instrumental impact on policy. For instance, the government’s 2015 decision to impose a 7.5% VAT on private university tuition fees was withdrawn following strong student protests (Daily Star, 2015). In 2017, a robust movement by women’s rights groups led to the enactment of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, amending the 1929 law. Similarly, widespread student protests after a fatal road accident in Dhaka prompted the government to pass the Road Transport Act 2018 (Daily Star, 2018b).
In 2023, large-scale demonstrations by garment workers demanding higher wages resulted in a 56.25% increase in the minimum monthly wage—from Tk. 8,000 to Tk. 12,500—and the subsequent passage of the Bangladesh Labour (Amendment) Bill, 2023 (Daily Star, 2023). In 2018, nationwide student protests led to the abolition of the civil service quota system, which had reserved 56% of first and second class jobs for various groups (Daily Star, 2018).
In 2024, when the government attempted to reinstate the quota, it faced renewed student opposition. The movement culminated in a major reform, raising merit-based civil service appointments to 93% (up from 45%) and reducing the freedom fighters’ descendants’ quota from 30% to 5%, with the remaining allocated to ethnic minorities (1%), persons with disabilities, and members of the third gender (1%) (Daily Star, 15 Oct 2024).
However, it is also important to note that several environmental and agricultural movements in Bangladesh have failed to make an instrumental impact on policy. Notable examples include the anti-Rampal power plant movement and the opposition to large-scale shrimp farming.
The anti-Rampal movement, which aimed to stop the construction of a coal-fired power plant near the Sundarbans—a UNESCO World Heritage Site—ultimately failed, as the plant proceeded to commercial operation (Roy, 2023). Led by civil society organizations, including environmentalists, professionals, and local activists, the movement reached its peak in early 2017 through widespread protests and strikes demanding the project’s cancellation. However, it failed to generate strong local support, particularly from displaced residents of Rampal. A lack of cohesion and solidarity among participating groups further weakened the movement. Crucially, the government actively promoted the project, employed coercive tactics against protesters, and launched a state-funded propaganda campaign to downplay environmental concerns.
Similarly, the movement against large-scale shrimp farming—which has caused the displacement of small farmers and significant environmental degradation—failed to reverse the trend. The conversion of mangrove areas into saltwater reserves for shrimp cultivation led to saltwater intrusion into sources of drinking and irrigation water, severely impacting the livelihoods of freshwater fishermen and farmers. Although civil society in Bangladesh has mobilized against shrimp farming since the 1990s, and despite drawing some public attention and protests, the movement did not achieve a meaningful reversal or significant scaling down of the industry. This outcome reflects a complex interplay of factors, including strong government backing, the economic importance of shrimp exports, and the political influence of powerful industry stakeholders.
Public Engagement in the Policy Process: The Determining Factors
The preceding discussion highlights that public engagement in policymaking in Bangladesh varies significantly in both form and impact. To understand the reasons behind this variation, the current study employs the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) in conjunction with the pathway model of policy making to identify the factors shaping the influence of public opinion on policy. The ACF highlights key contextual factors that affect the bargaining, negotiation, and compromise among coalitions of different policy actors that include: a) relatively stable factors b) dynamic factors while the pathway model emphasizes on the nature of negotiation among the coalitions as the determining factor of policy influence.
- a) RELATIVELY STABLE PARAMETERS
- BASIC ATTRIBUTES OF THE PROBLEM AREA. Public engagement in the policy process depends on the issues capable to draw attention of the public. A group of scholars agree that the more salient an issue to the public, the stronger the relationship between public opinion and public policy is likely to be (Page and Shapiro, 1983). The issue of salience and visibility impacts citizen engagement in the policy process in Bangladesh. Salience refers to the extent to which an issue is seen as important or relevant to individuals, while visibility refers to the extent to which an issue is prominent in public discourse (Jones & Baumgartner, 2005).
In Bangladesh, as elsewhere, issues with direct, short-term impacts on individuals’ personal lives are often seen as more salient and visible than longer-term or complex issues. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the salience of public health policies in Bangladesh. The government’s decision to implement strict lockdown measures and enforce social distancing guidelines directly impacted people’s daily lives, particularly those in the informal sector who rely on daily wages to support their families. These policies were highly visible and received significant media attention, raising public awareness about the importance of following public health
guidelines to control the virus’s spread. Similarly, in the education sector during the pandemic, students and teachers reacted to government decisions to introduce online classes and cancel final exams, leading to the government providing free internet for students and adopting alternative examination modes.
According to the respondents, people are more likely to react to policy proposals when they are familiar with the issue and see potential benefits for their community. Familiarity can lead to increased understanding of policy content and impacts, thereby increasing the likelihood of a positive public response (Weible, Sabatier & McQueen, 2009). For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, student assessment systems in schools saw multiple revisions as suggested by parents. On the contrary, due to its technicalities and nonfamiliarity with the issue, engagement of the wider public was not seen with regard to anti Rampal power plant movement.
The technicality of an issue also determines the nature of public engagement in policymaking in Bangladesh. Bovens (2005) stated that public engagement varies depending on the degree of technicality of the policy. A bureaucrat noted that while formulating the Health Financing Strategy 2012-32, which was relatively technical, it was deemed irrelevant to engage the general public. On the other hand, while framing the Nutrition Policy, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with community members were held to ensure that the policy was informed by the perspectives and experiences of those it aimed to serve. This suggests that technical policies may not engage the public as much as non-technical policies do.
- FUNDAMENTAL SOCIO- CULTURAL VALUES AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE. The general public in Bangladesh is less engaged in policy affairs, limiting the influence of public opinion on policymaking. The current study finds a general lack of interest and apathy among the public in conveying their views to policymakers. Many feel it is not their responsibility to engage in the policy process or that they lack the time or resources to do so. Socio-cultural factors such as distrust in government institutions, low awareness, power distance, and limited literacy contribute to this lack of proactive citizenship and thereby active civic involvement.
The majority of respondents in the study noted a general lack of trust in government institutions and officials, contributing to public disillusionment with policymaking. Many citizens feel that their past attempts to express opinions or participation have had little impact, reinforcing their skepticism and reluctance. Furthermore, the inaccessibility of the policy process and its lack of transparency deepen this distrust.
Citizens in Bangladesh are often unaware of their rights, responsibilities, and opportunities to engage in policies that affect their lives. For example, although the government allocates a significant portion of its budget (12.8% in 2025–26) to a wide range of social safety net programs, a study found that only 29% of the population was aware of these programs (Mallik, 2018). Despite the existence of mechanisms to promote citizen engagement, ‘a large section of people are not aware of these initiatives and do not know how to participate in them,’ noted an NGO official during an interview. This lack of information fosters disengagement and apathy, as many citizens feel disconnected from the policy process. As discussed earlier, this low level of awareness is largely rooted in limited access to both information and the policymaking process itself.
Low literacy and limited public knowledge are major barriers to effectively communicating public opinion in Bangladesh. With a literacy rate of 74.91% (BBS, 2022), a significant portion of the population may lack the ability to engage in policymaking through informed and critical analysis. Most respondents in this study highlighted a strong correlation between illiteracy and disengagement, noting that individuals with low literacy levels are often reluctant to participate in the policy process.
High power distance between policymakers and the public—a prominent socio-cultural trait in Bangladesh—also hampers citizen engagement in the policy process. Power distance, defined as the extent to which individuals accept and expect unequal power distribution (Hofstede, 1983), discourages citizens from questioning or challenging policymakers’ decisions. This contributes to a sense of apathy and disengagement among the citizen, undermining a culture of participation. Consequently, policy decisions are often shaped by the interests of those who are able and willing to engage, rather than reflecting the broader public’s needs.
- BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE /LEGAL FRAMEWORK. A country’s constitution plays a crucial role in shaping its political system and establishing the legal frameworks that enable or restrict the participation of various actors in policymaking, including public engagement. These foundational elements are key contextual factors that influence the nature and extent of public involvement in the policy process. This subsection explores how the political system, pressure group dynamics, and the structure of the policymaking process affect the degree to which public opinion can influence policy outcomes
POLITICAL SYSTEM. Bangladesh has experienced a turbulent democratic journey. Following its independence in 1971, the country adopted a socialist democracy under its Constitution. However, this path was disrupted by the onset of military rule in 1976, which lasted until 1990. The restoration of parliamentary democracy came through the 12th Amendment in 1991[1], following a free and fair election. Yet, democratic practices have faced persistent challenges. From 2008 to 2024, the country witnessed increasing authoritarian tendencies under the leadership of Sheikh Hasina, despite the formal continuation of democratic institutions. Her government was ousted on August 5, 2024, following a student-led mass uprising known as the July Revolution. In the aftermath, an interim government assumed power to oversee the transition until a newly elected government is formed.
During the sixteen years of authoritarian rule (2008–2024), the representativeness of the government was widely questioned, as elections were plagued by vote rigging, violence, and voter intimidation. These irregularities significantly undermined political participation and public trust in the electoral process. The resulting lack of representativeness rendered elected officials largely unaccountable to the public and unresponsive to their constituents’ needs, thereby limiting the influence of public opinion in the policymaking process.
A recent study highlights that Bangladesh’s unfavorable political environment discourages electoral participation and suppresses political competition (Islam, 2020). The 10th, 11th, and 12th Parliamentary elections—held in 2014, 2018, and 2024 respectively—illustrate this trend. In the 10th election, 154 of the 300 seats were elected uncontested following a boycott by the main opposition party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), and its allies, amid concerns about the neutrality of the incumbent Awami League (AL) government (Mollah, 2016). Similarly, the 11th election in 2018 saw the AL-led alliance won 284 seats, raising serious concerns about representativeness and political competition (The Daily Star, Dec 31, 2018). The 12th election in 2024, also boycotted by the BNP, recorded the lowest voter turnout in recent history (41.9%) (The Daily Star, Jan 8, 2024). These developments point to a deeply flawed electoral process, marked by limited competition and declining public trust, reducing incentives for political parties to heed public opinion or incorporate it into policy agendas.
Alongside elections, press freedom is a key indicator of democratic quality. In this regard, Bangladesh continues to rank poorly, placing 162nd out of 180 countries in the 2022 Press Freedom Index (The Daily Star, May 3, 2023). This low ranking highlights the serious challenges to media freedom in the country, particularly in the digital age. One of the most controversial constraints on press freedom is the Digital Security Act (DSA) of 2018, which was rebranded as the Cyber Security Act (CSA) in 2023 without making any substantive change to its repressive provisions. The CSA allows law enforcement agencies to arrest individuals without a warrant for content deemed critical of the government. As a result, numerous journalists, activists, artists, and writers have been targeted under this law (The Daily Star, Dec 6, 2022). Such measures pose significant threats to media independence and suppress the media’s role as a vehicle for public awareness—what Lipman (1922) referred to as the means by which citizens learn about their ‘unseen life space.’ This erosion of press freedom undermines democratic integrity and weakens public trust in the media, thereby further discouraging citizen engagement in policymaking.
Thus, the political system in Bangladesh has yet to become conducive to meaningful public engagement and the incorporation of public opinion into policymaking. Interviews with politicians, civil servants, and civil society representatives revealed predominantly negative assessments of the country’s political environment, particularly regarding core features of liberal democracy that enable public engagement in the policy process.
POWER OF PRESSURE GROUP POLITICS. Under Bangladesh’s liberal democratic framework, as outlined in its Constitution, various groups are engaged in the policymaking process. However, interest groups tend to have significantly more influence than the general public. This disparity arises from differences in group resources—such as social networks and economic power—as well as group size and proximity to the ruling party. Wealthier or strategically positioned groups are often better equipped to shape policy through lobbying or political contributions.
In the education sector, for example, private universities exert substantial influence due to their financial strength and political connections. Similarly, in the health sector, professional bodies like the Bangladesh Medical Association (BMA) and the Pharmaceutical Association hold considerable sway over policy decisions, largely because of their strategic relevance to the ruling party. The BMA, for instance, successfully lobbied the government to permit publicly employed doctors to engage in private practice, despite strong opposition from civil society. Interest group theorists (e.g., Schattschneider, 1960; McConnell, 1966) argue that public opinion often has limited impact on policy when the system is skewed in favor of well-organized business and professional interests, effectively obstructing broader democratic participation
POLICY PROCESS. Within a country’s legal framework, the structure and functioning of the policy process are critical in determining the role of the public in policymaking. The policy process itself can serve as a barrier to the influence of public opinion on public policy. Emery et al. (2015) identify several key features of the policy process that shape the effectiveness of public engagement: (i) the legitimacy of public engagement, including whether it is formally recognized in legislation or through widely accepted national dialogues; (ii) the integration of public consultation into policymaking, such as direct participation—either face-to-face or online—by policymakers in engagement efforts; (iii) the actual use of outputs derived from public engagement in the formulation of policy; (iv) the degree of access granted to researchers and practitioners to the inner workings of civil service institutions; and (v) policymakers’ motives, perceptions, and attitudes toward public engagement. These factors collectively influence the extent to which public input can shape policy outcomes.
In terms of the legitimacy of public engagement in the policymaking process, this study finds that while certain legal provisions exist in Bangladesh to promote citizen participation, they are rarely implemented in practice. Article 239 of the Secretariat Instructions 2014 provides a legal basis for public engagement, stating that public opinion is mandatory in the formulation of public policy. However, most civil servants interviewed were unaware of this provision, and even when informed, some dismissed it as lacking enforceability. At the local level, mechanisms such as public hearings and Ward Shavas (open meetings at the lowest administrative unit) are mandated under the Union Parishad Act 2009. Yet, these forums are often not held, or are conducted in a perfunctory manner (Boex et al., 2015). As a result, despite the existence of legal provisions, policymakers do not view public consultation as a binding obligation. Instead, it is often treated as a procedural formality, with its implementation left to the discretion of individual ministries or divisions.”
The extent to which public consultation inputs are integrated into policymaking is a key indicator of a policy process’s support for public engagement—an area where Bangladesh shows notable shortcomings. Bureaucrats interviewed identified several factors contributing to policymakers’ reluctance to incorporate public opinion into policy decisions. First, they noted that public feedback is often not well-articulated or constructive, partly because policy issues are not communicated in simple, accessible, and non-technical language. For instance, the government’s 2010 decision to introduce public-private partnerships (PPPs) in the health sector—intended to enhance efficiency and access—was met with civil society protests rooted in the misconception that the initiative would benefit only the wealthy. Second, institutional limitations hinder the ability of government bodies to document and effectively utilize public inputs. There is often little transparency about how such feedback is interpreted or applied. As one ruling party politician remarked, ‘The complexity of our policy language makes it difficult for the public to provide meaningful feedback, which in turn limits our ability to incorporate their views.’ In contrast, opposition politicians argued that most of the time the ruling party intentionally avoids integrating public opinion, often in subtle but deliberate ways.
The accessibility of the policy process to researchers and practitioners—who contribute valuable expertise and knowledge—is another important indicator of how supportive the process is toward public engagement. This study finds that in Bangladesh, such access is limited, with entry into the inner workings of the bureaucracy often restricted to individuals with personal connections or informal networks. While government information is technically available through official websites, these platforms are frequently ineffective due to poor organization, outdated content, and lack of user-friendliness, making it difficult for users to locate relevant and timely information.
Policymakers’ motivation for public engagement plays a critical role in shaping opportunities for citizen involvement. This study finds that the primary incentive for engaging the public is to secure policy legitimacy by ensuring acceptance among key stakeholders. As one civil servant noted, in a democratic context, a minimum level of public participation is considered necessary—even if largely symbolic. However, such engagement is typically directed more toward stakeholder groups than the general public, indicating a limited and selective approach to participation.
- b) DYNAMIC FEATURES
Among the dynamic external factors identified by the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), a change in the systemic governing coalition appears to be the most relevant in explaining the influence of public opinion on public policy in Bangladesh.
- i) CHANGE IN SYSTEMIC GOVERNING COALITION. During the study period (2010–2024), Bangladesh experienced only one significant change in its governing coalition. As previously noted, on August 5, 2024, a sixteen-year period of autocratic rule ended following a mass uprising, and a student-led interim government assumed power. Within a short time, the new government initiated several notable policy reforms. Most prominently, it included student representatives—those who had led the movement—alongside other stakeholders in all national-level committees. Additionally, in response to long-standing public demands, the interim government moved to repeal the Cyber Security Act (CSA) 2023, reform the Election Commission and the Anti-Corruption Commission, and begin rewriting the 1972 Constitution to reflect the aspirations of a new generation in the 21st century. These developments suggest that with the change in the governing system, public opinion has become a central driver of policy change.
- Discussion
The study provides a nuanced analysis of how the opinion of public, often called the marginal policy actor is channeled into public policy in Bangladesh. The key finding of the study shows that public opinion in Bangladesh influences policy primarily through indirect mechanisms. Unlike Western nations where referendums, opinion polls, and direct consultations are mainstream tools, Bangladesh relies on indirect mechanisms such as: i) elected representatives in Parliament and local government bodies, as well as members of civil society and interest groups; ii) stakeholder consultations; iii) NGO advocacy; iv) demonstrations and activism; and v) social media and websites (though often symbolic or inaccessible).
The absence of face-to-face engagement is generally compensated through institutional websites, social media and national dialogues involving expert groups, interest groups and stakeholders. Institutional websites are often symbolic or inaccessible while social media is rarely constructive or impactful.
Alignment between public preferences and actual policy change is not consistent. Findings of the study suggest that public inputs may have both ‘conceptual’ and ‘instrumental’ impacts on policy. Withdrawal of VAT on private university tuition (2015), Child Marriage Restraint Act (2017), Road Transport Act (2018), Garment workers’ wage hike and Labour Act amendment (2023), Civil service quota reform (2024) are the examples of the instrumental impacts of public opinion on policy while the importance of referral health system, need for lowering the OOP expenditure for health services have significantly sensitized the policy makers leaving only conceptual impact on policy.
What explains the variation in how public opinion influences policymaking? To answer this question, the study has employed the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and the pathway model of policy making. The findings of the study show that public opinion is largely communicated to policymakers indirectly through various coalitions or groups mentioned above. In line with the assumptions of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), the public often becomes part of advocacy coalitions, contributing to belief systems and shaping policy preferences through shared values and interests. These contributions are typically expressed via protests, demonstrations, and other forms of collective action led by organized groups. The impact of public opinion in policies largely depends on the mobilization capacity of the groups and this is where the pathway model of policy making is adopted to explain and analyze the dynamics.
Adopting the pathway model of policymaking, the study finds that public policies in Bangladesh are more likely to be shaped by the pluralist pathway i.e., the organized groups capable of generating pressure through strikes, protests, and other means of advocacy. Mobilization capacity of the groups is the determinant of the form and extent of their influence on policy. In many cases, ‘large interests’—such as pharmaceutical companies, the Bangladesh Medical Association, students, women’s rights groups, and garment workers—have demonstrated the ability to exert significant instrumental influence on the policymaking process. In July 2024, the government accepted students’ demand for reforming the quota (reservation) system in government jobs, largely in response to the intensity and nationwide scale of their demonstrations. This illustrates how cohesive, well-organized movements with broad public support can exert instrumental influence on policy decisions. In contrast, despite having substantive merit, the civil society movements opposing the Rampal power plant and large-scale shrimp cultivation failed to bring policy change. These efforts were hindered by a lack of cohesion among protesters, limited engagement from the broader public, and the strong countervailing influence of the ruling political party. The contrast highlights how the capacity of the groups determines their influence on public policy in Bangladesh.
Thus, unless articulated through organized efforts, the public is often viewed as a ‘scattered/marginal interest,’ whose opinions are frequently overlooked in policy decisions. In practice, public opinion tends to be equated with the views of stakeholders and interest groups, which are given greater prominence in the policymaking process. This practice risks diminishing the overall influence of genuine public opinion on policy outcomes (Burstein, 2003).
In exploring the underlying reasons for such minimal role of the public in policymaking, the study, guided by the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF)—identifies certain relatively stable and dynamic factors that shape the influence of public opinion on policy. Among the relatively stable factors, basic attributes of the problem meaning salience and visibility is one of the important determinants of public engagement. Public engagement tends to be higher on issues that are prominent in public discourse (e.g., COVID-19 policy), and less technical in nature whereas more complex or less visible policies (e.g., Health Financing Strategy) often proceed without meaningful public involvement.
Another stable factor—the country’s constitutional and legal framework that upholds a particular political system—emerges as a significant barrier to effective public engagement. Although the Constitution of Bangladesh envisions a liberal democratic order, the nation’s political history has been marred by repeated departures from its foundational principles, including democratic governance, fair electoral practices, and press freedom. The absence of credible elections has resulted in unrepresentative and nondemocratic governments, while restrictions on media freedom have curtailed public discourse and limited transparency. Collectively, these conditions weaken government accountability and reduce incentives to incorporate public opinion into policymaking. This disconnect between citizens and the government erodes public trust and further undermines meaningful engagement in the policy process.
Policy process—another stable factor is also generally not conducive to meaningful public participation. It is characterized by weak enforcement of legal provisions requiring public engagement, a general reluctance among policymakers to act on public input, limited integration of public opinion into policy, and restricted access to policy process by the researchers and practitioners Additionally, institutional capacity to document and utilize public feedback remains inadequate.
Beyond institutional and political barriers, several socio-cultural values and structures featuring low trust in institutions, low literacy leading to a widespread apathy and disinterest in governmental policy, low awareness of rights and mechanisms and high-power distance inhibits citizen engagement.
As a dynamic factor within the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), the study finds that the ‘change in governing coalition’—as witnessed in 2024 Civil Service quota reform—significantly contributed to the integration of public opinion into policymaking.
- Conclusion
The current study undertakes an in-depth analysis of the influence of public opinion on policymaking in Bangladesh employing the ACF and pathway models of policy making. ‘Public’ being the marginal set of policy actor, they can reach policy through various indirect means. Three key findings emerge from the study: i) stable factors such as country’s political system, legal frameworks, cultural norms largely determine public engagement capacity; ii) dynamic factor e.g., shifts in power or crises can open the window for public participation; and iii) intense demonstration especially by strong, organized groups aligned with salient public concerns—has the best chance of influencing policy. The contextual factors identified as determinants of public engagement in the policy process offer a valuable framework for comparative analysis of public participation across South Asian countries.
[1] At independence in 1971, Bangladesh had a Parliamentary form of government which was replaced by the Presidential form of government in 1975 through the Fourth amendment of the Constitution.