Campaign Poetry vs. Governing Prose: Examining Why Election Manifestos Lack Legal Force

The 13th National Parliament election and the referendum relating to the proposed reforms in Bangladesh is scheduled to be held on February 12 this year. The announcement of election manifestos by political parties has now become a democratic tradition around the world. Election manifesto is a political instrument in which a political party details its future policies, visions, development plans, programs, schemes etc. for the people and country. Therefore, election manifesto is a political commitment to the voters.

In reality, political parties and candidates make a lot of flurry promises before the election while on several occasions they start delaying the implementation of the pledges after being elected and forming the government. Sometimes they fulfill few significant commitments, although in other cases they often talk about various practical challenges to implement them. These manifestos are frequently exaggerated to attract voters and, in most cases, candidates make surreal promises that are beyond their legal authority to accomplish.

Media being the fourth estate can play a crucial role in the fulfillment of the pre-election promises. The political party concerned can be held accountable by the time they have assured us of accomplishing projects and regularly present their progress, plans, challenges, alternative thoughts to overcome them etc. to the citizens. Alongside, the opposition parties can constantly ask questions to the ruling party in the parliament about their pre-election commitments. Consequently, the ruling party or coalition will face continuous surveillance in fulfilling their pledges. Hence, they will be cautious to incorporate achievable commitments that can be implemented within the specific time limit with allocated resources.

As the elections approach, it is obvious that all the major political parties will make numerous pre-election pledges through their manifestos. In the age of social media and artificial intelligence, there are huge prospects that these promises will get new dimensions. As a result, accountability to carry out the pre-election pledges is more important than ever.

From past bitter experiences, the main question in the minds of the people now is whether political parties will be mindful to perform their pre-election pledges after getting power. But what should the people do if they do not fulfill their commitments? Should they wait to answer them through vote again after five years or can they enforce those promises through the courts?

In the United States, there is a mandatory obligation to pronounce the election manifesto two months before the election. Since there is no central election management body, the electoral authorities have no role in this regard. However, in Westminster democracy, parties have to state a financial provision to ensure that their manifesto is realistic and submit it to the court of audit. The election manifesto must include specific policy decisions and their financial consequences in the UK. Moreover, manifestos and other election campaign materials have to follow the rules set by the UK Electoral Commission.

On the other hand, the Election Commission (EC) of our neighboring country Bhutan necessitates all political parties to present their election manifestos before the National Assembly elections. The contents of the manifestos are then reviewed by the EC of Bhutan and, if necessary, excluded by them. Our EC can also take similar initiative by amending the law and adding power to verify whether the manifesto is consistent with democratic values ​​and constitutional spirit of the country and, if necessary, direct the party concerned to bring necessary changes.

Nevertheless, on the question of whether the election manifesto is legally enforceable by the courts, the Delhi High Court in India ruled that the election manifesto is not legally enforceable and subsequently in 2015, the Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal against this judgment that confirmed that it is not enforceable by the courts in India.

Some legal scholars believe that election manifestos should be enforceable through the courts to enhance transparency and trust in the democratic system. The existing non-binding nature weakens accountability and transparency. Making manifestos legally binding can, at least in theory, ensure that political parties focus on meeting the actual needs of people.

Nonetheless, there are several ethical, legal, technical and practical challenges to turning election manifestos into legally enforceable contracts. This obligation will create an obstacle, if ever the need arises to form a coalition government. Question will arise as to which party's manifesto will be enforced in court? What will happen if the commitments of the parties in the coalition differ from each other?

Aside, who will be held responsible for the promises? The Prime Minister (PM) or the party/coalition chief or the policy-making forum of the party or the spokesperson who disseminated it? That will create a major complication. Additionally, what if the PM attempts to bring the relevant bill before parliament but the parliament refuses to pass it?

Furthermore, a pre-election promise may no longer be reasonable for implementation in the changed context after the election. Besides, it may not be possible to implement the promise due to various uncertainties including natural disaster, epidemic, war, internal chaos, etc. which may create a difficult situation if there is legal obligation. Due to all these practical complications, the legally binding manifesto may bring new challenges to the country against transparency and accountability.

To resolve the issue, the ruling party or coalition can be forced to comply with their own commitments through the EC. Although the affidavit that every candidate submits to the EC while submitting the nomination form has to include a description of the promises made to voters and the extent of their achievements if they have won the election in the past. But there is no system to monitor the implementation of the manifesto given by a political party. Thus, there should be mandatory provision to include along with the annual audit report of the political parties submitted to the EC regarding the extent to which the election manifesto was fulfilled, why the remainder was not attained, plans to recover the gap etc. and it should be made public. The political leaders should bear in mind that pre-election manifestos are not just the combination of few sentences articulated by them, but rather a publicly declared commitment of duties towards citizens and country. Accordingly, any breach of that will bring political consequences for them.

Published in The Business Standard as Thought on 19 January 2026.

Published in New Age as Op-ed on 22 January 2026 on page 8.

Published in Bonik Barta on 5 January 2026.

Published in the Weekly Shampratik Deshkal on 12 February 2026 issue (available online on 15 February 2026) on page 6.

Published on Deshkal News on 15 February 2026.

The Illusion of Control: The DNCC’s Misguided Rent Guideline

A few days ago, when the Dhaka North City Corporation (DNCC) authorities announced that they would take practical steps to control house rent in the capital, it brought hopes of relief in the minds of countless tenants in Dhaka. Although some new legal questions and fears of further rent hike have arisen after announcing detailed guidelines by the DNCC Administrator Mohammad Azaz on 20 January. However, the DNCC has provided explanation that rent determination will be based on negotiation and existing laws within couple of days amid extensive criticism. Earlier, in the wake of a writ petition, the High Court Division of the Supreme Court issued a rule to prepare a policy for determining house rent by the Dhaka North and South City Corporation authorities and those concerned.

Nonetheless, the purpose of the DNCC’s house rent guidelines should have been to establish some balance and fairness in an uncontrolled market. Now that has created new complications in terms of legal validity and practical applicability. The biggest concern is the provision of maintaining the existing annual rent increase rate of not more than 15 percent of the market value of the property. It will ultimately act as a license to skyrocket the rent.

Most of the instructions given by the DNCC are against the interests of both the landlords and the tenants, are chaotic, unreasonable and illegal. Although the DNCC guidelines emphasize on discussions with tenants on various issues, it does not seem that the DNCC authorities themselves discussed and took opinions from all concerned before preparing the guidelines. Even if they did, it appears that they have issued an unplanned guideline of their own accord without including those recommendations.

For example, clause 4 asserts that the landlord will give the keys of the roof and the main gate to tenants subject to conditions. But there is no guidance on what the conditions may be or what the considerations will be in determining the conditions.

Further, clause 5 of the guideline states that the tenant will pay the rent to the landlord by the 10th of the month. However, according to the House Rent Control Act, 1991, in the absence of a contract, the rent is to be paid within the fifteenth day of the following month. As a result, the legal rights of the tenants have been violated here.

Again, clause 7 provides that the time for increasing the rent will be June-July. In reality no tenant will definitely wait for the months of June-July to rent a house. In that case, if someone rents at other times of the year, the landlord cannot increase the rent if the two-year period lapse not in June-July, which is not a logical rule at all and is against the interests of the landlord.

On the other hand, clause 9 of the guidelines stipulates that a tenant can be evicted if h/se fails to pay rent on time. But section 18 of the Act has added some more grounds and clarified in which circumstances the landlord can and cannot evict a tenant. As a result, there is a fear of loss of interest of both the landlord and the tenant in this regard.

Moreover, clause 13 has gone beyond the law and determined that the landlord can take one to three months’ rent in advance. Although the Rent Control Act made it maximum of one month. Therefore, it creates opportunity to ask for an additional advance from the tenants. On the other hand, clause 15 mentions that the regional executive officer should be informed if the landlord and tenant association cannot resolve the dispute. But there is no detail about within which time limit and in what manner the dispute will be resolved. Though the regional executive officer does not have the power to resolve such dispute as per law. The law shall prevail if there is conflict between the guidelines and the law. As a result, it is not at all clear whose interests this guideline will actually protect.

On the other hand, there is no mention of how the obligations imposed on the homeowner or tenant will be ensured or held accountable, or who will take care of them. Most importantly, what will be the consequences if someone does not comply with these? And does the DNCC have any legal power or practical ability to implement this directive?

In addition, other administrative structures required to implement the guidelines are inadequate; for example, ward-based owners and tenants’ associations and the arbitration system through them are not prevalent in our system. Therefore, the possibility of arbitration being effective without clear legal provisions is low. Overall, the directive is largely advisory; its legal basis and practical implementation framework are both extremely weak.

In reality, the House Rent Control Act, 1991 is ineffective in Bangladesh. Rules have not been formulated even today; the regulatory post has been vacant for decades. Interestingly, the provision of increasing the rent by up to 15 percent yearly (after the first two years) is within section 15 of the Act and the DNCC, as a local authority, does not have the power to amend it. The main problem with the House Rent Control Act, 1991 is that there is no clear and realistic method for determining the market price. Although both the law and guidelines mention about the standard rent determination; but the detailed method and considerations for such standard rent determination is not provided.

Adopting a rational approach to rent control (such as setting realistic maximum annual percentages based on area and amenities and revising them from time to time), ensuring monitoring and accountability, establishing strong, independent and accessible dispute resolution body (such as a House Rent Tribunal or Board), awarding costs to the winning party, etc., are urgent at this moment to uphold the interest of both the homeowners and tenants.

The government should therefore now introduce a fair rent determination system that takes into account the local market analysis, the quality of the building, the amenities provided, the area, the quality of the civic services, the liveability and the income capacity of the tenant, instead of the existing ‘15% of the market value’. Additionally, bringing the necessary amendments to the House Rent Control Act, 1991 immediately; formulating rules under the Act; creating the post of rent controllers in every city corporation and municipality and appoint the necessary number of officers; establishing ward based separate dedicated body to resolve housing rental disputes; strictly implement and monitor the provisions of the law etc., are obvious now.

Dhaka’s tenants, who are one of the backbones of the city’s economy; have long been victims of neglect, deprivation and exploitation. An effective and fair rent determination requires a realistic and strong legal framework; so that the rights of both parties are specific and a speedy redressal process is within everyone’s reach. The government and the local authorities must focus on establishing a quickly implementable, balanced and transparent legal framework, not an imaginary policy. Otherwise, this guideline will remain on paper as always, and homeowners and tenants will bear the consequences. Now is the time to ensure a modern, up-to-date and humane legal protection for the housing market of the country.

Published on Dhaka Opinion Magazine as Commentary on Law on 1 February 2026.

Published on Counter Point BD as Analysis on 3 February 2026.

Published in the Rupali Bangladesh as Sub-editorial on 30 January 2026 on page 4.

Published in Sangbad as Sub-editorial on 30 January 2026 on page 6.

Published in Bonik Barta as Sub-editorial on 31 January 2026 on page 8.

Published in Ajker Patrika as sub-editorial on 7 February 2026 on page 4.