Do Bangladeshi political parties need a firm communication policy?

As Bangladesh nears another national election, public attention is centred on newsrooms and social media feeds. There is hope—especially among young voters—that this election could bring about a meaningful shift in governance and political culture, more importantly, a shift away from issues colloquially labelled as 'fascism'.

However, amid the noise of rallies, talk shows, public engagement and online debates, a deeper problem becomes clear: Bangladeshi political parties operate with little to no coherent communication policy.

This is not merely a stylistic flaw; it is a structural weakness that undermines trust, accountability and, ultimately, democratic governance.

Across the country, party leaders deliver contradictory messages. They make promises without feasibility studies, cost analyses or clear plans. Statements by senior officials are often softened or contradicted by local leaders within hours. In the digital age—where speeches are clipped, archived and shared instantly—such inconsistency accumulates. Voters notice. Screenshots do not forget.

From rhetoric to responsibility

Political communication is no longer about charisma or volume. It is about consistency and credibility. When parties fail to discipline their messaging, three consequences follow.

First, citizens struggle to understand what a party truly represents. Is it a promise, official policy or an emotional appeal? Is it a party stance or an individual opinion?

Second, inconsistency breeds cynicism. When voters hear different versions of the "truth", they disengage. Politics becomes performative—something to watch rather than trust.

Third, poor communication during elections signals weak coordination in governance. If a party cannot align its message before gaining power, policy consistency afterwards becomes even less likely.

A global lesson: the Brexit case

A powerful global example is the United Kingdom's Brexit referendum. During the 2016 campaign, the 'Leave' camp promised that leaving the European Union would free up £350 million per week for the National Health Service—a claim prominently displayed on campaign buses. The message was simple, emotionally appealing and repeated consistently.

After the referendum, leading campaigners distanced themselves from the claim, admitting it was misleading. The damage, however, was already done.

The result was not just political confusion but long-term public mistrust. Years of policy uncertainty followed, marked by shifting narratives, leadership changes and public fatigue. Brexit became a clear example of how inconsistent and irresponsible political communication can damage governance long after the votes are counted.

Why this matters for Bangladesh

Bangladesh is not holding a referendum on EU membership, but the underlying lesson is highly relevant.

Like the UK, Bangladesh has a highly politicised media environment. Like the UK, emotional slogans often overshadow policy details. As in the UK, once promises are made publicly, backtracking erodes credibility—not just of individuals, but of institutions.

In Bangladesh, where political trust is already fragile, the cost of such erosion is far higher. When citizens stop believing in political communication, they also stop believing in reform itself.

Slogans without substance

As election rhetoric intensifies, familiar slogans grow louder, with the "Jitbe ebar…" song being one example. Slogans mobilise supporters, but they are not policy frameworks.

Today's voters want to know how leaders will control inflation, create jobs, improve public services and manage climate risks. Chants, no matter how loud or consistent, do not answer these questions. Leaders need thorough studies, solid research and thoughtful public presentation.

Without a structured communication policy, slogans risk sounding disconnected from reality—repeated loudly but poorly explained.

What a communication policy actually means

A firm communication policy does not mean scripted politics or silencing leaders. It means alignment: ensuring that all spokespeople consistently convey the same core messages. This coordination helps unify a party's voice and maintain credibility.

Such a policy would establish:

• Clearly defined core policy positions
   
• Designated official spokespersons for sensitive or technical matters
   
• Internal fact-checking and review mechanisms
   
• Guidelines for digital and social media conduct
   
• Clear distinctions between aspirational goals and actionable commitments
   

In many mature democracies, political parties treat communication as a governance tool rather than merely an electoral weapon. Messaging is tied to research, legal feasibility and fiscal reality. Errors are corrected quickly, not defended.

Communication as a measure of leadership

Bangladesh's electorate is younger, more connected and more sceptical than ever before. A Facebook Live can reach millions in minutes; a careless remark can spark a nationwide backlash within hours.

This reality can either weaken politics or improve it.

Clear, honest and consistent communication can rebuild trust, even when harsh truths are shared. Voters tend to forgive limitations more readily than contradictions.

Ultimately, communication is not a peripheral aspect of leadership; it is central.

As Bangladesh faces another political crossroads, the most crucial question political parties should ask themselves is straightforward: if every word we say is recorded and remembered, are we ready to stand by it?

A firm communication policy would be a responsible and overdue step for Bangladeshi political parties. With only a few days remaining before the election, it may be too late to implement an effective one. However, if developed with the right intent, it could prove beneficial in the long run.

It is unclear whether any previous government had a formal communication policy. Yet if a political party were to develop one now, it could set a precedent in governance by entering power with a solid plan. In doing so, parties could introduce a new form of political competition—rooted in communication integrity—which could, in turn, energise both parties and voters.

Shafiq R Bhuiyan writes on how communication, culture, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) converge to shape a more conscious and compassionate society.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.