BCB’s cycle of political interference and dysfunction

Bishwajit Roy Failure to build strong institutions continues to undermine many sectors in Bangladesh, preventing them from achieving their desired goals. When allowed to function independently and sustainably, institutions strive towards good governance and development, but when political interference takes hold of them, short-term interests get priority over long-term stability. The recent developments at the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) highlight this persisting national predicament. The trajectory involving three former national captains—Faruque Ahmed, Aminul Islam Bulbul, and Tamim Iqbal—is not merely a sequence of power transitions but a reflection of how governance of an apparently autonomous body repeatedly gets disrupted by external influence. Google News LinkFor all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. Faruque’s appointment as BCB president in August 2024, following the exit of then board chief Nazmul Hassan Papon as a result of the Awami League government’s fall, initially raised hopes of reform in the national regulatory body for cricket. But his subsequent removal less than a year later, followed by a politically charged comeback as the vice-president through the election in October 2025, underscored how fragile leadership positions in the BCB have become. The pattern repeated with Aminul Islam Bulbul, first installed as president through a National Sports Council-backed process, then elected in a highly controversial election, only to be removed amid allegations and counterclaims just six months later. Now, the sudden emergence of Tamim Iqbal at the helm of an ad hoc committee, accompanied by individuals with clear political affiliations, continues a familiar cycle. Such frequent leadership shuffles, driven or influenced by government intervention, fundamentally weakens the institutional spine of the BCB. And it is cricket that suffers the most. Whoever assumes power in Bangladesh begins with a familiar promise: to keep sports free from political influence. The newly appointed state minister for youth and sports, Md Aminul Haque, echoed that commitment recently. Yet, the events unfolding at BCB suggest that such promises remain easier said than done. The dissolution of the elected board led by Aminul and the installation of an 11-member ad hoc committee headed by Tamim, mandated to hold an election within 90 days, have exposed a deep institutional vulnerability. This is not merely a clash of individuals but the result of long-standing constitutional contradictions that have never been properly resolved. At the centre of the crisis lies the BCB constitution which, instead of safeguarding the board’s autonomy, enables interference. One of the most glaring issues is the role of National Sports Council (NSC), the government’s apex overseeing agency for sports, which retains the power to nominate two directors to the BCB board. This provision institutionalises government presence within the cricket body and creates a fundamental contradiction: a board that claims autonomy while structurally accommodating external influence. The BCB constitution further allows intervention under the NSC Act, including the dissolution of an elected body, as seen in the recent turn of events. While such authority may be justified in exceptional circumstances, its broad and ambiguous scope leaves the door open for discretionary use. The root of the problem also lies in the councillor nomination process. The clause allowing district sports associations to send representatives “if” no district cricket association exists has long been exploited. This ambiguity has repeatedly enabled manipulation of the electorate, undermining the integrity of elections before they even take place. The constitution should clearly prioritise district cricket associations—much like district football associations in football governance—with well-defined criteria for councillor eligibility. These structural weaknesses are rooted in a critical moment in the board’s history: the controversial 2012 constitutional amendment. At that time, amendments to the BCB constitution were introduced but subsequently altered by the NSC before approval. This raised serious legal questions about the limits of the NSC’s authority. The matter eventually reached the courts, where it was clearly established that the BCB, as an autonomous body, retains the right to frame and amend its own constitution, subject only to approval—not alteration—by the NSC. The court’s ruling was a defining moment. It reaffirmed institutional autonomy and provided the BCB with an opportunity to correct the structural flaws in its governance framework. But that opportunity was lost. Instead of addressing the inconsistencies exposed by the ruling, the BCB proceeded with elections under the same contested framework. In doing so, it effectively legitimised a flawed structure rather than reforming it. The failure to “right the wrongs” of 2012 has since haunted the institution, with each subsequent crisis tracing its root back to those unresolved issues. The latest episode is, therefore, not an isolated incident but a continuation of that history. BCB’s centralised nature is another constitutional weakness. Despite a long-standing commitment to decentralise cricket administration, power remains overwhelmingly concentrated in Dhaka. Club representatives, particularly from established clubs in the capital, dominate the board. Out of 25 directors, a significant portion (12) comes from club affiliations, an imbalance rarely seen in other cricketing nations. This structural bias entrenches a narrow power base and sidelines regional cricket development. With 25 members, the BCB has the largest board of directors among all Test-playing nations—more than twice the size of most, and in some cases, more than three times as large. The question inevitably arises: why? After the AL government’s ouster, there was genuine hope that the interim authority would seize this rare opportunity to introduce reforms in the BCB, paving the way for genuine cricket organisers to reclaim the board. But those expectations quickly faded when the Faruque-led board suspended the much-talked-about constitution reform committee before it could present its recommendations, reportedly under pressure from Dhaka clubs threatening to boycott the leagues. Financial considerations further complicate matters. With crores of taka in revenue and reserves, the BCB is not just a sporting body but a powerful economic entity. Without strong institutional safeguards, such financial weight inevitably attracts political interest, intensifying competition for control. What is most concerning is that the current transition, instead of breaking this cycle, risks reinforcing it. Tamim Iqbal’s appointment to lead an ad hoc committee could be another opportunity for genuine reform. But reform requires more than administrative reshuffling. It demands structural correction. Before moving towards a fresh election, the priority must be to address the constitutional flaws that have repeatedly undermined the board’s credibility. Without reforming the framework, any election, no matter how efficiently conducted, will only reproduce the same problems. Tamim’s first responsibility, therefore, is to ensure that the system under which he is supposed to hold the election is fair, transparent, and free from political manipulation. He has already expressed his desire to contest the polls, which raises a question about the whole agenda. This includes revisiting provisions that allow NSC intervention, clarifying councillor nomination rules, reducing structural ambiguities, and ensuring that the BCB exercises its rightful authority to frame its own constitution in line with both legal rulings and international standards. Otherwise, the risk is clear: a hurried election under an unreformed constitution will simply mark another phase in the ongoing cycle of politicisation. The lesson extends far beyond cricket. Institutions cannot be strengthened through rhetoric or periodic resets. They require consistent commitment to rules, respect for autonomy, and the courage to implement reform, even when it challenges entrenched interests. The endurance of institutions is not optional; it is essential. And unless Bangladesh learns to protect its institutions from political encroachment, even its most cherished sectors, such as cricket, will continue to struggle between promises and paralysis. Writer: Bishwajit Roy is sports editor at The Daily Star. Note: Views expressed in this article are the author's own.