Media Reform Commission heading towards failure

There is a strange connection between Bangladesh’s media reform process and governments lacking democracy. Before the establishment of government through universal suffrage in undivided Pakistan, the first Press Commission (PPC: Pakistan Press Commission) was formed in September 1954. Led by Justice Tayebji of Sindh, it submitted its report in March 1959, when General Ayub Khan’s military rule had already taken hold across Pakistan, including Bangladesh. Later, in independent Bangladesh, the Press Commission (The Bangladesh Press Commission) was formed on 26 April 1982, during the military regime of General Hussain Muhammad Ershad.

That seven-member commission, led by politician and former Prime Minister Ataur Rahman Khan (Bangladesh’s fifth Prime Minister, 30 March 1984 – 9 July 1986), submitted a report in March 1984 containing 102 recommendations. Forty years after that report, another Media Reform Commission was formed in 2024, again in unusual circumstances. The twelve-member commission led by Kamal Ahmed has already submitted its report to Professor Dr Muhammad Yunus’s interim government, and it is still under consideration. A particular feature is worth noting in the structure of both the 1982 Press Commission and the 2024 Media Reform Commission. The 1982 commission included officials (from joint secretaries upwards) of various ministries.

In 2024, that was avoided. More notably, the 1982 commission had included the secretaries of the Home, Law, Finance and Information ministries, along with the Defence Ministry’s secretary. They were excluded in 2024. Whether this decision—to exclude various ministries from the reform process—proves good or bad, or creates obstacles or resistance to implementation, will be seen in the coming months. But personally, I believe at least the Home and Defence ministries could have been included in the 2025 reform process.

The Media Reform Commission submitted its report this March. The 180-page report covered media ownership, the establishment of a Bangladesh Media Commission, journalists’ protection laws, press freedom, defamation, cyber security laws, contempt of court, hate speech, the Right to Information Act, data removal, national broadcasting and online media policies, private television, FM radio, online portals, and recommendations regarding BTV, Bangladesh Betar and BSS. It also proposed financial security for journalists, combating misinformation, ensuring gender equality in the media, creating equal opportunities for indigenous communities, and even producing specialised content for people with disabilities or special needs. Most importantly, the report included drafts of the Bangladesh Media Commission Ordinance 2025 and the Journalism Protection Ordinance 2025. Since the report repeatedly referred to the Bangladesh Media Commission’s role in implementation, citizens had hoped the government would quickly act on these recommendations and begin drafting the Bangladesh Media Commission Ordinance 2025.

Instead, on 20 June, a five-member committee was formed to ensure autonomy for BTV and Betar, headed by Education Adviser CR Abrar. That the education adviser is leading the committee for BTV and Betar’s autonomy struck me as both surprising and deeply disappointing. I am not questioning the competence of CR Abrar or the other advisers, but it is obvious they are not at the forefront of specialised knowledge, expertise or foresight regarding media. The Media Reform Commission had clearly recommended the urgent formation of the Bangladesh Media Commission as a regulatory authority.

The recommendations detailed the number of members, their qualifications and responsibilities. In this light, forming a new autonomy committee in place of issuing the Bangladesh Media Commission Ordinance 2025 and the Journalism Protection Ordinance 2025 seems nothing more than a waste of time. It is worth recalling that in 1996, a high-level commission was formed under former secretary Asafuddowla to ensure BTV and Betar’s autonomy, funded by the UNDP with Tk 8 million—a significant sum at the time. Its main recommendation was to establish an independent Broadcasting Commission. But the reluctance, suspicion and administrative complications of then Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and State Minister Professor Abu Sayeed meant the proposal never materialised. That experience shows that without the goodwill and openness of political governments, BTV and Betar’s autonomy remains an illusion in Bangladesh. Why the interim government abandoned realistic plans and instead pursued such a difficult and fanciful idea of autonomy will take time to understand.

A closer look reveals strong reluctance within the bureaucracy and among future ruling parties to establish a Bangladesh Media Commission or a separate Bangladesh Broadcasting Authority outside the Information and Broadcasting Ministry. There may even be strong internal opposition. This makes the current plan for BTV and Betar autonomy appear almost impossible. Yet in this changed situation, it was possible to bring Betar, BTV and BSS under one umbrella, as recommended in detail by the Media Reform Commission. The commission proposed forming an integrated structure along the lines of the BBC in the UK or Deutsche Welle in Germany, to save public money and build a professional framework. This is realistic and implementable, and would prevent wastage of public resources. Why the government ignored this in favour of focusing on the far more complicated issue of autonomy is difficult to understand. Is this not simply procrastination? An attempt to sidestep the real issue? It is known that the bureaucracy strongly opposed the integration proposal. In other words, the civil service is determined not to allow the unification of Betar, BTV and BSS.

On 26 June, Kamal Ahmed, head of the Media Reform Commission, wrote an article in Prothom Alo titled “What July’s Charter Includes and What It Should Include”. In it, he expressed near-open disappointment at the government’s lack of interest and progress in implementing the commission’s recommendations. He pointed out that the commission’s proposal to enshrine in the constitution provisions similar to those in Sweden and Switzerland—guaranteeing journalists’ freedom of expression, protecting sources, and safeguarding their privacy—was not even under discussion.

He also expressed disappointment at how freedom of expression, criticism of the courts, and other relevant issues were being handled in the Consensus Commission. His frustration with the pace and nature of its deliberations was quite clear, particularly regarding reforms designed to prevent the media from becoming willing accomplices of future authoritarianism. He emphasised that pushing media reform down the priority list would be a mistake. I believe Kamal Ahmed is very close to the interim government, so his fears are truly disheartening. Nor is he alone. Another commission member, Jimmy Amir, said with clear irritation at a CPD event on 10 August that media reforms had not happened simply because bureaucrats did not want them. He also expressed anger that the Consensus Commission was not even discussing the Media Reform Commission’s recommendations.

Rahat Minhaz: Assistant Professor, Department of Mass Communication and Journalism, Jagannath University