Bangladesh Politicalscape Division Deepens Over Democratization Roadmap

SALEEM SAMAD

The majority of people in Bangladesh are in the dark and groping in the wild to understand what the much-talked-about “July National Charter” is about, a political roadmap for democratic transition, at the behest of the Interim Government.

A genuine national consensus on the path to democratic renewal has fallen short of expectations. Uncertainty surrounding its implementation has left several political parties hesitant to sign, despite an eleventh-hour intervention by Chief Adviser Nobel laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus.

Many parties have shown themselves to be unable to bridge their differences over the nation’s future direction. Since the circulation of the final draft, some have questioned whether the exercise produced any meaningful consensus, wrote Kamal Ahmed, a columnist and former Chairperson of Media Reforms Commission of the Interim Government.

Last Friday, millions with access to national media, including television, newspapers, news portals, and social media, who are supposed to make informed decisions, plunged into a state of confusion over the new political roadmap.

Hasnat Quaiyum, president of the left-leaning Bangladesh Rastro Songskar Andolon, described the draft as “weaker” than the accord reached among the three alliances during the 1990s student uprising against former military ruler General HM Ershad.

However, the two major political parties Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the Awami League, in a see-saw to power several times, never bothered to bring about legislation in the parliament to implement the reforms agreed to in the joint declaration post-1990.

The Charter was named after the July-August Monsoon Revolution, which ousted autocratic Sheikh Hasina after 15 years of rule. A year ago, the street protests killed nearly 1400 young people in 36 days of Monsoon Revolution.

With the July Charter finally taking shape, Mohiuddin Alamgir of the Daily Star looks into the changes in the constitution, legislative structure, balance of power, and caretaker government system, as well as the new laws needed to reshape governance.

The Charter, born out of a compact among political parties, proposes a raft of constitutional reforms to reinvigorate Bangladesh’s parliament, which has remained weak and failed to function as an effective check on executive authority.

The proposals include the introduction of a bicameral legislature, a stronger opposition bench, institutional oversight, and checks and balances at the heart of parliamentary democracy.

Very few topics in Bangladesh’s political discourse have sparked as much debate or endured as long as the caretaker government system. To many, it represents not just a procedural framework but also a reliable means of conducting free and fair elections.

Introduced in 1991 through a rare political consensus, the caretaker system was widely accepted as a safeguard to ensure neutral elections, free from the influence of ruling parties. It was incorporated into the constitution in 1996.

Its unilateral abolition by the Awami League government in 2011 triggered a decade-long bitter dispute over an acceptable mechanism for holding credible elections.

The issue has emerged again with renewed urgency, as the July charter calls for the restoration of the system.

Restoring the caretaker system with more safeguards in the charter has been stressed. Presently, the Supreme Court is hearing the abrogation of the caretaker government system.

Once the apex court renders a verdict on the cancellation of the system, Bangladesh will switch to the caretaker system mode. The Interim Government will cease to function 90 days before the election and hand over power to the Caretaker Government.

Reforms ahead of the national election have been the most consistent pledge of the interim government. One of the core reforms, apart from reviving the caretaker government system, is to bring about a balance of power between the prime minister and the president.

For years, critics have warned that the immense constitutional powers vested in the prime minister risk fostering authoritarianism, with the post of president remaining largely ceremonial, devoid of substantive authority.

The July Charter proposes curbing the PM’s overarching powers and strengthening the role of the president.

“To prevent the emergence of a fascist regime in the future, there must be a balance of power,” said Prof Ali Riaz, vice president of the National Consensus Commission.

Political parties have long stressed the need for a mechanism to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of the head of the government.

“Nearly all institutions are subject to the prime minister’s unilateral control. The president is constitutionally bound to act on the advice of the prime minister. In effect, the president holds no independent authority,” remarked Riaz.

Presently, the post of president is ceremonial. Real executive authority lies with the PM, who is the most powerful political actor with control over the executive, strong influence over the legislature, and indirect dominance over other state organs, wrote Alamgir.

Following independence, Bangladesh adopted a parliamentary system of government. However, the country transitioned to a presidential form through the fourth amendment to the constitution in 1975.

The parliamentary system was reinstated in 1991, designating the prime minister as the executive head of the government and the president as the constitutional head of state. In reality, the president acts on the PM’s advice in almost all matters.

In an effort to curb the concentration of power in the Prime Minister’s Office, according to the charter, most political parties agreed that an individual may serve as PM for a maximum of 10 years. The PM will not be the leader of the ruling party in the parliament.

The charter proposes that a lawmaker would be barred from holding the office of PM and remaining party chief at the same time. However, BNP and several like-minded parties issued a note of dissent on the matter.

Not to the surprise of political analysts, the Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islam always echoed the Interim Government’s election road map, without any question.

“The aim here is to create a degree of separation between the party and the government, thereby reducing the concentration of power in the hands of the prime minister,” Ali Riaz said.

“Plenty of theoretical ideas are there [in the charter], but what will happen in reality remains to be observed,” said Al Masud Hasanuzzaman, a former teacher of Jahangirnagar University.

Consensus Commission Vice President Ali Riaz said the overarching objective is to establish an accountable state and strengthen its institutions so that the country is not governed by the whims of any individual or group.

Kamal Ahmed, consultant editor of The Daily Star, concludes that the deeper divisions surfaced over contentious political questions. Disagreements persist over the powers of the proposed second chamber in parliament, eligibility criteria for its members, provisions for amending or suspending the constitution, appointments to key constitutional and regulatory bodies, the president’s impeachment process, nominating a deputy speaker from the opposition, and parliamentary ratification of international treaties.

First published in the Stratheia Policy Journal, Islamabad, Pakistan, 20 October 2025

Saleem Samad is an independent journalist based in Bangladesh and a media rights defender with Reporters Without Borders. He is the recipient of the Ashoka Fellowship and the Hellman-Hammett Award. He could be reached at <saleem.samad.1971@gmail.com>; Twitter (X): @saleemsamad

India Never Questioned the Bangladesh Elections

SALEEM SAMAD

Last week, the Indian External Affairs Secretary Vikram Misri opined that Bangladesh should hold a free, fair, and inclusive election. It is fair to make a generalist statement to a group of visiting Bangladeshi journalists in Delhi.

The Bangladesh Foreign Affairs Advisor Touhid Ahmed, in a rebuttal, said that the Indian foreign secretary’s remark on the upcoming polls was ‘completely unwarranted’, saying that it is entirely an internal affair of the country.

“I see that statement as not their matter; it is entirely an internal issue for Bangladesh, and such comments are completely unwarranted,” he told local reporters recently. Prof Muhammad Yunus has announced that the general election will be held next February. The announcement was made after several parleys with political parties.

The journalists did not counter that the ousted Sheikh Hasina had held elections in 2014, 2018, and 2024. The three elections were fraudulently organized sans opposition political parties. Tens of thousands of opposition leaders, members, and sympathizers were held in prison for months during each election. What the journalists could not respond that, soon after the questionable elections were held, India was the first country to congratulate Hasina for being elected for another term of office.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in the days after elections, posted a congratulatory message on Twitter (X) hailing Hasina for holding an election. Such a post gives a hidden message that India will always remain beside Bangladesh. Delhi never advised Dhaka to hold a free, fair, and inclusive election. Possibly Hindu-extremist ruling Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) never wanted to embarrass their all-weather friend Hasina in urging to hold credible elections in Bangladesh.

Several countries in the West, including the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, the United Nations, and even Japan, urged Hasina to hold free, fair, and inclusive elections. Their request fell on deaf ears. She often barked at the West, stating that they are creating political pressure on her government in the election, and told conspiracy theories. This was later found to be based on misinformation and fake news.

In another statement by the Indian External Affairs Secretary that India would continue to engage with whoever comes to power in Bangladesh through free, fair, transparent, internationally recognized, and participatory elections. This statement was clearly understood, that India will reset its button after an elected government takes charge, likely in the coming February. Until then, the hot and cold relations will continue during the Interim Government. Delhi South Block will continue to go slow in bilateral relations with Dhaka. Whichever political party comes to power, it will be critical of India’s foreign policy and bilateral relations. The new government will vehemently oppose the Indians in every sphere.

The new democratically elected government will demand to resolve the long dispute on water-sharing, border-killing by Indian forces, pushing “illegal migrants” through the porous borders, lopsided trade balance, and other issues, including relaxing the visa regime. On the visa regime: India has clamped a moratorium on the issuance of tourist visas to Bangladeshi nationals since the ouster of Hasina. Except for one in Dhaka, other visa centers have been shut down for more than a year.

The Bangladeshi journalists have raised the issue of the visa regime in Delhi South Block. Indian Secretary Misri did not give a plan for resuming visas to Bangladeshi. On the other hand, Bangladesh missions in India have continued issuing visas to Indian nationals on a priority basis. Yunus urged the diplomatic missions abroad to expedite visas to journalists. Now all missions have been issuing visas to foreign journalists, including Indian scribes.

Earlier, journalists seeking a visa faced a hassle and were often turned down or rejected. The visa application first arrives at the Foreign Ministry. The application travels through the bureaucrat’s desk of the Home Affairs Ministry and the Information Ministry. After approval, the journalists and TV crew were given visas. Before arriving in Bangladesh, the journalists or TV crews were briefed on do’s and don’ts. After arriving in the country, the smart guys from the security agencies kept surveillance of their movements, the people they met, and the places they visited.

The crucial issue would be to extradite Sheikh Hasina from a military safe-house somewhere in Delhi without any conditions. Another critical issue would be to deport hundreds of most-wanted Awami League leaders, party members, and their cohorts living in exile, mostly in Kolkata. According to The Print, an Indian portal, it is estimated that 1,300 Awami League leaders and members are living in India. Their official status of staying in India is unknown.

The Awami League has opened two offices in Kolkata and New Delhi. Delhi has not commented on the party leaders and members overstaying in India, and has also made no comment on their offices in India. If Delhi does not comply with the extradition of the wanted persons within the stipulated deadline, the new government in Dhaka will surely declare non-cooperation with India. Many other actions will follow, which will be difficult for Delhi to digest.

What Ambassador Humayun Kabir, also President of Bangladesh Enterprise Institute (BEI), says India never faced any challenges from Bangladesh. Prof Yunus deliberately avoids confrontation with India. Even then, Yunus is despised by the Delhi South Block and the BJP. The upcoming political government in 2026, the Bangladesh-India relations are likely to turn sour, and the bone of contention will center on Hasina.

India will be in a dilemma to extradite Hasina and improve the relations or keep her in a safe-house and jeopardize the relations, says Kabir. India will bully Bangladesh, which will not be liked by the West. She (India) will not be able to justify the poor relations with Bangladesh to the West, nor can she raise the issue to the United Nations or any world forum to resolve the bilateral relations.

First published in Stratheia Policy Journal, Islamabad, Pakistan, 09 October 2025

Saleem Samad is an independent journalist based in Bangladesh and a media rights defender with Reporters Without Borders. He is the recipient of the Ashoka Fellowship and the Hellman-Hammett Award. He could be reached at <saleem.samad.1971@gmail.com>; Twitter (X): @saleemsamad

https://stratheia.com/india-never-questioned-the-bangladesh-elections/

Bangladesh on The Election Train!

SALEEM SAMAD

After 18 months, the nation will go for an election in February 2026. Since the Nobel laureate Prof Muhammad Yunus took charge of the Interim Government last August, he faced several hiccups in running the administration. One of the challenges he faced was when his government announced a road map for a free, fair, and credible election. In this election, people would be able to express their wish to elect a party that would form a legitimate political government.

The other challenge was stabilizing the situation of law and order. Most of the police forces have fled their ranks in fear of retaliation by protesters for killing thousands of students and protesters. The understaffed police forces are inadequate to restore law and order in the country.

However, law enforcement has been supplemented by the Bangladesh Army in every city and town. Initiate the trial of leaders of Awami League, including former prime minister Sheikh Hasina, for crimes against humanity for ordering to opening fire upon thousands of protesters.

During the bloody July-August anti-government street protests known as the Monsoon Revolution, Hasina was forced to quit and flee to India, where she is living in exile for the second time in her political career. Meanwhile, in a typical political development, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party’s (BNP’s) supremo Tarique Rahman, acting Chairman, held a parley with visiting Prof Yunus in London, where he was living in exile.

The hour-long parley thawed a couple of crucial political discontentment with the new government. Yunus repeatedly said the election should be held before June next year. But BNP, a rightist democratic party, demanded that the election be held at the end of December. Or else there will political and economic crisis, which may cause a law and order situation.

Yunus is determined that the election should be held after the crucial reforms are agreed upon with the political parties. However, BNP and its like-minded fringe politics did not give any specific reason for demanding the election to be held at the end of this year. Political circles said that the high school final exam, the month of fasting in Ramadan from mid-February, Eid ul Fitr in mid-March 2026, the advent of monsoon, etc., were not favorable for a general election.

Earlier on the eve of Eid ul-Adha, Yunus announced that the election would be held in April 2026. Well, the Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami’s chief, Dr. Shafiqur Rahman, has said the chief advisor’s announcement has reassured the nation of the transition to democracy. The National Citizens’ Party (NCP) stated that steps should be taken to implement the July Charter (Monsoon Revolution), and the proposed reforms; they have no objection to elections being held within the announced timeframe.

BNP rejected the election announcement and declared street protests against the government to hold polls by the end of December. BNP supremo Rahman, after the parley in London, agreed that the deadline for the political parties to commit to the reforms in the judiciary, the election commission, the bureaucracy, police administration, the anti-corruption commission, and others.

Yunus wants the political parties to agree to the reform proposals to ensure transparency, accountability, and public social responsibility of elected leaders. The politicians to keep their party supporters loyal to them, and ensure that the henchmen enjoy impunity for the crimes, they need to influence the police, judiciary, and civil administration.

Therefore, it is understood that the politicians oppose reforms. They have been arguing that the Interim Government does not have the jurisdiction to conduct any reforms. Like the howls of jackals, the parties want the elected parliament should endorse the reforms and make them public laws for the benefit of the people.

Meanwhile, BNP’s high command has refused to ally with Jamaat-e-Islami or any Islamist party. BNP is confident that it will win the majority to form a government. BNP also has also problem with the newly formed King’s party – the National Citizens Party (NCP) by the student leaders who have spearheaded the Monsoon Revolution, which toppled the iron lady Hasina last August.

The NCP blames BNP’s inherent weakness for failing to topple the autocratic regime, which ruled Bangladesh for more than 15 years. Hasina intermittently hunted and haunted the opposition. Her government arrested tens of thousands of BNP leaders, activists and supporters and threw them in prisons on terrorism charges, damaging government properties, and attacking police.

BNP and other opposition leaders were immobilized. The opposition was neutralized after several brutal crackdowns by the law enforcement agencies and henchmen of the ruling Awami League. The opposition was unable to organize effective anti-government street protests to block the elections, which were boycotted.

The elections of 2014, 2018, and 2024 were held sans the opposition and the poll results were doctored, according to national and international election observers, which echoed the media coverage of the election ballot box stuffing, henchmen taking possession of polling stations, and widespread vote buying.

Hasina never bothered to hold free, fair, and inclusive elections. She deliberately ignored the media feedback, human rights organizations’ statements, and the poll observers’ report. She took the senior journalists into her confidence with lucrative benefits. She split the journalists’ union among pro-government loyalists and pushed others to join the opposition union.

Hundreds of journalists faced legal harassment, intimidation and were jailed under repressive cybercrime laws. The draconian cyber laws targeted opposition, critics, dissidents and especially the “delinquent” journalists who refused to be loyal to Hasina.

The media landscape has changed. Most media cannot publish/broadcast news, which hurts the feelings of the student leaders of NCP. Often, they barge into the newsroom when they are dissatisfied with certain news outlets critiquing their source of funding for holding massive rallies and a lavish lifestyle.

In most cases, they intimidate news organizations to delete the story or headlines that are deemed inappropriate and tarnish their image as revolutionaries. Scores of journalists were terminated or asked to resign in the face of the NCP’s threats. They forced the National Press Club in Dhaka to cancel more than a hundred veteran journalists and senior members of the club.

Dr Rakib Al Hasan, Executive Director of the Center for Partnership Initiative, a research office, said NCP failed to gather moss from rolling stones. The new party does not believe in pluralism and secularism. They have been engaged in witch-hunting against professionals, and bureaucrats, including journalists, professors of state universities, and teachers of several educational institutions.

The television and stage actors were banned from shows. Several of the plays were postponed until the drama producers got rid of the actors. The student leaders have lost credibility among the mainstream journalists, intellectuals, and the military hierarchy, which still remains steadfast behind Prof Yunus, remarked Hasan.

What is disliked by the sympathizers of student leaders for appeasing Jamaat-e-Islami and other radicalized Islamic groups, who are cut off from the masses, said the young researcher.

It will be difficult for NCP to muster the support of the millions who also joined the Monsoon Revolution to vote for them in the upcoming election, which is now scheduled to be held eight months from now, predicts the private research organization.

First published in the Stratheia Policy Journal, Islamabad, Pakistan, on 14 June 2025 

Saleem Samad is an award-winning independent journalist based in Bangladesh. A media rights defender with the Reporters Without Borders (@RSF_inter). Recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He could be reached at saleemsamad@hotmail.com; Twitter (X): @saleemsamad

Bangladesh Election Schedule

SALEEM SAMAD

The inherent weaknesses of Nobel laureate Prof Muhammad Yunus’s interim government has prompted Chief of Army Staff, General Waker-Uz-Zaman, to call for an elected government. His statement on 24 February made it clear to the government, political parties, and student leaders responsible for waging the July-August Monsoon Revolution last year, which ousted Sheikh Hasina’s autocratic rule, that 18 months is enough time to hold a general election.

Prof Yunus has announced that the election could be held in December this year. However, his Press Secretary, Shafiq ul Alam, said it could be held either in December or January 2026. The election date to parliament will be announced at the decision of the Election Commission, which is not an independent body. Earlier, Yunus has repeatedly said that the elections will be held only after reforms of crucial state institutions take place to ensure democracy, accountability, and transparency of the government and the officials.

The General repeated twice that the election should be free, fair and inclusive. The questions that come to mind are: What does he mean by inclusivity? Did he mean that no political parties should be left out from contesting the parliamentary elections?

On the other hand, the students have been agitating that Sheikh Hasina led Awami League should be banned and Yunus should not invite the Jatiya Party to any official dialogue.

aThe East Pakistan Awami Muslim League is the oldest party and was born only a few years after the birth of Pakistan. The founders of the party, who defected from the Muslim League in a bid to accommodate others, dropped “Muslim” and formed the Awami League in 1955.

Where as, Jatiya Party, a king’s party emerged after General Husain Muhammad Ershad in a bloodless coup in 1981 formed his party to consolidate his power. In 1990, he was overthrown after months of violent street protests by the students.

His party indeed was a “loyal opposition” during the 15 years rule of Hasina. The honeymoon period of the Jatiya Party abruptly ended when the Awami League regime collapsed and Hasina fled to India last August.

The back-scratching has prompted the leaders of the student revolution to say no to the Jatiya Party – a loud and clear message that they should not be in politics in future.

The two military juntas took power and formed king’s parties – one was the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), which ruled the country for the fourth consecutive term. The second was the Jatiya Party. General Ershad’s party ruled for nine years until his regime collapsed in 1990.

BNP was formed when military dictator General Zia ur Rahman, a liberation war decorated officer, took power in the vacuum when independence hero Sheikh Mujib ur Rahman was assassinated in August 1975 by a dozen young military officers without a political vision to steer the country through a crisis.

General Rahman took over the helms of affairs of the country, after a soldier’s mutiny in less than three months of the previous military putsch. Despite having a political vision, for unknown reasons, he rehabilitated those politicians who opposed the independence of Bangladesh in crucial positions.

He also rehabilitated scores of Bangla-speaking military officers who fought alongside the Pakistan Army against the Mukti Bahini guerillas and Indian troops during the bloody war in 1971 and dodged the surrender ceremony of Pakistan armed forces. Also, most of the Bangla-speaking military officers were recruited in senior positions in the police services.

In a speech, last week, commemorating the fallen officers of the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) revolt 17 years ago, General Waqar-uz-Zaman has said, ‘We are thinking that we will finish the work quickly and take the army back to the cantonment.””We have to be patient. Work with professionalism. Until an elected government comes, we have to do this with patience,” he furthermore stated.

Many have remarked that the COAS has expressed discomfort against the Yunus government when the situation of law and order reached an alarming level.

The crime situation in Bangladesh is such that there are thefts, robberies and dacoities committed in broad daylight causing widespread panic among the citizenry.The Home Affairs Advisor, Lt. General Jahangir Alam Chowdhury, called a press conference at his house at 3 am and blamed the Awami League for the law and order situation. He said, “Awami League is funnelling ill-gotten money to desperate criminals.”

Political and administrative circles believe that the comments of the army chief regarding the alarming rise of crime amid the demand for the resignation of the home adviser, and his accountability have given the allegation of failure of the government.

Meanwhile, Indian Nobel laureate Prof Amartya Sen, who was born in Bangladesh and studied in a school in Dhaka in an interview with the Indian official news agency Press Trust of India (PTI) a few days ago praised the Bangladeshi Army for its restraint in not attempting to establish military rule, as has happened in many other countries.

Dr Sen said “Yunus is an old friend. I know he is highly capable and, in many ways, a remarkable human being. He has made strong statements about Bangladesh’s secularism and democratic commitment.”

In many third-world countries, the military has always been ambitious to take over power and overthrow a legitimate government, Bangladesh Army seems to behave very rationally.

Bangladesh military officers are refused deployment in United Nations Peacekeeping and also provided visit visas to the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia and European countries for track record on human rights abuse. That is one of the reasons that General Zaman has advised his troops deployed for the anti-crime operation so-called “Devil Hunt” to avoid excessive force and shoot to kill suspects.

On the other hand, the mainstream political parties Bangladesh BNP and Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami have been demanding an early election, a month after Yunus took charge of the government in August last year. Dr Yunus, however, urged the political leaders to hold their patience until the crucial reforms of the election commission, judiciary, civil administration, constitution, media, anti-corruption, police administration and others are implemented.

The Chief Adviser of the Interim Government aims for the reforms in a bid to develop a state system based on public ownership, accountability, and welfare. The political parties negotiating with the government have in the back of their mind the fact that the Yunus administration does not have the legitimacy to implement the reforms in the absence of a parliament. They are saying in closed-door party meetings that the political parties would be empowered to implement the reforms. Without the reforms, most observers and political think tanks believe that the political parties will take the country back to square one when they refuse to have the reforms in place.

Reforms will bring about more accountability and transparency of elected public representatives, which the politicians will not agree to in any case. In addition, the independence of the judiciary, and civil and police administration will jeopardize their authority over their constitution.

This is not the first time that the political and administrative reforms have been taken seriously. In 1990, days after the downfall of the military dictator, the student leaders were able to convince the mainstream opposition parties, the Awami League, BNP and Left coalition leaders to sign a pledge that they would bring about reforms of the government institutions.

Unfortunately, both the Awami League and BNP ruled the country several times. They deliberately ignored the reforms, leading to politicization of police, civil services, judiciary, election commission and other governmental institutions to manipulate in favor of the politicians and their henchmen. Therefore, political historian Mohiuddin Ahmed predicts that hundreds of pages of reform documents would be thrown out of the windows of the iconic massive parliament building designed by Louis Kahn, a celebrated visionary architect.

First published in the Stratheia Policy Journal, Islamabad, Pakistan on 4 March 2025

Saleem Samad is an award-winning independent journalist based in Bangladesh. A media rights defender with the Reporters Without Borders (@RSF_inter). Recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He could be reached at saleemsamad@hotmail.com; Twitter (X): @saleemsamad

Bangladesh parliamentary elections is likely next year

General Waker-uz-Zaman Photo: REUTERS/Mohammad Ponir Hossain

SALEEM SAMAD

Bangladesh will not have to wait for years, as it happens in countries where popular people’s revolutions have ousted autocratic regimes and military dictators.

The election in Bangladesh is expected sometime in the winter of 2025. In a rare press interview, General Waker-uz-Zaman, the chief of the Bangladesh Army, told world-reputed British news agency, Reuters that a transition to democracy should be made between a year and a year-and-a-half, but urges to hold patience.

The military chief was candid in speaking out that the transition to democracy should be within a year and a half.

Why will it take time to transition? Bangladesh is presently under repair and in maintenance mode as described by the students on the city wall graffiti.

The country is being overhauled, which has crumbled during the 15 years of autocratic rule. All the democratic institutions like the judiciary, law enforcement, bureaucracy, education, election and media have been riddled with corruption, nepotism and favouritism.

Awami League, lifelong president of the party Sheikh Hasina, had deployed his henchmen and loyalists to govern the state institutions, which are supposed to uphold the pillars of democracy.

The inventor of micro-credit Dr Yunus, chief adviser of the Interim Government, has launched to overhaul the institutions through reforms on the principles of democracy.

In line with sweeping government, reforms proposed since Hasina was shunted from power, the army, too, is looking into allegations of wrongdoing by its personnel and has already punished some soldiers, Zaman said, without providing further details.

Come what may, General Zaman pledges support to Nobel laureate Dr Muhammad Yunus-led Interim Government, he told the Reuters correspondent Devjyot Ghoshal and Ruma Paul on 23 September.

Yunus, the interim administration’s chief adviser, and the army chief meet every week and have “very good relations”, with the military supporting the government’s efforts to stabilise the country after a period of turmoil, said Zaman.

Regarding the enforced disappearance of opposition, critics and dissidents, the interim government has formed a five-member commission, headed by a former high court judge, to investigate reports of up to 600 people who may have been forcibly “disappeared” by Bangladesh’s security forces since 2009.

The army chief admitted that some military officials may have acted out of line while working at agencies directly controlled by the former prime minister or home affairs minister. “If there is any serving member who is found guilty, of course, I will take action,” he said.

Regarding politico-military relations, he said that he wanted to distance from the political establishment from the army, which has more than 1,30,000 personnel and is a major contributor to United Nations peacekeeping missions.

“It can only happen if there is some balance of power between president and prime minister, where the armed forces can be placed directly under the president,” he said.

“I will not do anything detrimental to my organisation,” he said. “I am a professional soldier. I would like to keep my army professional,” he further added.

“The military as a whole must not be used for political purposes ever,” he said. “A soldier must not indulge in politics.”

First published in Northeast News, Guwahati, India on 24 September 2024

Saleem Samad is an award-winning independent journalist based in Bangladesh. A media rights defender with the Reporters Without Borders (@RSF_inter). Recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He could be reached at saleemsamad@hotmail.com; Twitter (X): @saleemsamad

Can EC Become A Game Changer In Elective Democracy?

SALEEM SAMAD

In every election, the same screenplay of vote fraud and election irregularities has been produced by the ruling party.

Whenever BNP, Jatiya Party or Awami League are in power till today, the election observers witnessed a similar style of forcibly taking control of polling centres by henchmen of ruling party political leaders.

The Bangladesh Election Commission’s (EC) order to pack up the ongoing by-election in Gaibandha drew widespread accolades from civil society, rights organisations and national media.

Promptly the ruling Awami League bigwigs did not hesitate to critique the EC. They churned conspiracy theories that EC’s decision will make the electronic voting system questionable.

The recent electoral episode in northern Bangladesh invited fresh controversy regarding the operation of the electronic voting machine (EVM).

Whether the EVM is an electoral tool to ensure free and fair elections in a country where political parties flex their muscles in polling centres and flout the election code of conduct?

Indeed Gaibandha polls raised some doubts, whether the EC is competent to deliver the nation, a free, fair, credible and inclusive election.

Always the ruling political parties have a nexus with district civil administrators and district police. It seems the government officials do not have accountability under the oath of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.

Why does the ruling party abuse the nexus? The reason, the governing party possesses the ‘magic wand’ to influence the civil bureaucrats and police administration.

Their obligation to serve at the whims of their political master is obvious. The lucrative posting and promotion await for the subservient officers – the government officers cannot ignore the sugar-coated blessings of favouritism and nepotism to build their careers and accumulate wealth to live a peaceful life after retirement.

Prof Dr Nazmul Ahsan Kalimullah of Dhaka University and chairperson of JANIPOP, a voluntary election observer’s organisation explained that EC’s experience in Gaibandha proved that Bangladesh does not need a caretaker government to hold the general elections.

The EC is a constitutional body and has once again proved that it’s an accomplished organisation to hold free and fair elections.

Dr Masum Billah, a political analyst who teaches law at Jagganath University says a controversial clause in the constitution requires holding the general election keeping the existing parliament. As such, the lawmakers remaining in power flex their muscles in the election.

On the other hand, Awami League’s arch-rival Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) demands that the prime minister should dissolve the parliament before the election, which is not in compliance with the constitution. “It’s a collective political failure,” Dr Billah remarks.

Among other limitations of the EC, the body does not have its cadre service of civil officers to independently conduct a national election. Unfortunately, the EC is dependent upon the civil bureaucracy and police administration to conduct the elections.

There are several instances in the last half a century when the state apparatus showed thumps down on EC’s orders.

Despite being empowered by the constitution, sometimes EC becomes a toothless tiger and is unable to take departmental actions against delinquent officers of civil administration and police department.

What is next, after the newly launched newspaper Dainik Kalbela published breaking news that the upcoming general elections will be held on 4 January 2024?

Obviously, the nation will expect high hopes from the Election Commission. The EC in many countries has demonstrated as a role model in conducting credible elections.

The Chief Election Commissioner of India TN Seshan (Dec 1990 to Dec 1996) redefined the status and visibility of the Election Commission of India.

He became best known for his electoral reforms. He curbed several malpractices like bribing or intimidating voters, use of government funds and machinery for campaigning, appealing to voters’ caste or communal feelings, use of loudspeakers and high-volume music.

In another continent, Professor Attahiru Muhammadu Jega, was Chairman of the Nigerian Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), he organised a peaceful elections in 2015 for the first time in Nigerian history.

Well, the Bangladesh Election Commission should uphold the constitution and is expected to be game changer in elective democracy to deliver credible and inclusive elections in Bangladesh, which would be widely acceptable by the citizenry at home and abroad – the international bodies and the West too.

First published in the News Times, October 17, 2022

Saleem Samad, is an independent journalist, media rights defender, recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He could be reached at <saleemsamad@hotmail.com>; Twitter @saleemsamad

Who Is To Blame For Failed Gaibandha By-Poll?

SALEEM SAMAD

In an unprecedented move, the Bangladesh Election Commission (EC) suspended the by-elections in Gaibandha-5 (Fulchari-Shagata) in the middle of voting on 12 October.

Such a move in recent history has surprised many and is likely to strengthen the confidence of the opposition and the ‘aam-janata’ (general public), but it would be short-lived.

Nevertheless, the EC is empowered by the state constitution to hold a credible election.

The ruling Awami League did not expect EC would take dramatic action in halting the election in the middle of the electioneering.

The leadership is not all happy with the action of the EC. The nation is eagerly expecting a formal statement from party stalwarts.

Two things made the EC go ahead with a drastic decision to stop the election squarely blaming vote fraud. First, the surveillance cameras in the polling booths were monitored from the control room of the EC, where journalists were allowed to observe.

The suspension of the by-election in Gaibandha indeed will be a warning to political parties, local leaders and their henchmen.

The question has been raised, whether it was prudent of EC to cancel the voting, which is definitely not a solution to vote fraud.

One thing is clear the government did not cooperate with the EC. The government did not lend their shoulder to EC to hold a peaceful election.

Experienced observers of elective democracy, Dr Badiul Alam Majumder of SHUJAN and Dr Nazmul Ahsan Kalimullah of JANIPOP have expressed their reservations over the action by Election Commission on logical grounds.

They explained that the recent parley between the EC, civil administration (Deputy Commissioners) and police administration (Superintendents Of Police) gave a signal of appalling partisanship in the bureaucracy.

They recommended that the gap between the EC and the local civil administration have to be significantly reduced, living no room for confusion and controversy.

Both Dr Majumder and Dr Kalimullah feel that the election is the responsibility of the Election Commission, but successful implementation lies entirely with the district administration and law enforcement.

In short, the involvement of civil society, grassroots leadership and other stakeholders should work alongside the local civil administration and law enforcement. If there are irregularities and the election is cancelled for vote fraud then the responsibility for the failure to hold the polls will be bestowed upon the government.

Well, in most countries, the EC has election cadre service officials to conduct all kinds of elections. But for Bangladesh, it will be an additional burden on the national exchequer.

It is equally true that political parties, especially the ruling party will not agree to strengthen the independence of the EC, which may jeopardise their political career, and weaken the possibility to remain in power by hook or by crook.

Since independence, it would be difficult to say which election was credible and inclusive. Elections in different regimes were tainted.

When the voters in Bangladesh have lost confidence in the ballot; when the ‘aam janata’ fear their life going to the polling centres – then democracy fails. Democracy and electioneering are twins and go parallel.

When the government officers responsible for holding a credible inclusive election fail, who is to be blamed? Blame whom, the Election Commission (EC) or the civil administration?

If the civil service and police administration are recruited on a partisan background, what else the nation should expect from them?

It is also true that the district administration and police are under constant pressure from the local political leadership and vested groups, which restrains them from functioning.

In most cases, it becomes difficult for the local civil administration and police to continue with administrative duties because of political high-handedness and fear of losing their government job.

Like, Magura vote fraud and stark inaction by the Election Commission is still remembered, Gaibandha will also be remembered, when the general elections are around the corner, at end of 2023.

Do the ruling party understand that the whole world is observing the development towards holding parliamentary elections next year? The international community expects Bangladesh will not hold free and fair elections and also credible and inclusive elections too.

First published in The News Times, 14 October 2022

Saleem Samad, is an independent journalist, media rights defender, recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He could be reached at <saleemsamad@hotmail.com>; Twitter @saleemsamad

Bangladesh journalist expresses discontent over low turnout in elections hit by political turmoil

Dhaka, Jan 31 (ANI):

Bangladesh journalist Saleem Samad on Friday expressed discontent over low turnout in the recent violence-plagued elections, which were marred by clashes and strikes as the opposition, Bangladesh Nationalist Party boycotted the polls. 

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's Awami League ended with more than two-thirds of seats in a contest that was shunned by international observers as flawed and derided as a farce by the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).

With fewer than half the seats contested, the outcome was never in doubt. Talking to a reporter in Dhaka, Samad said the polls were first in the last 42 years which were not only low from voter's point of view but also from the candidates'.

Samad said the voter turnout was low due to the fear instilled by the opposition.

First published in the Business Standard, 31 January 2014

Future looks fraught in polarised Bangladesh

Dhaka's rival political matriarchs must talk to each other for the good of their country

SAMIRA SHACKLE

It is a story worthy of great theatre: the bitter rivalry between two women that is tearing apart a country.

Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia head the two main political parties of Bangladesh, and have swapped power back and forth for the last 20 years.

The relationship between the two “battling begums” has come under international scrutiny recently, after Bangladesh suffered the most violent election in its short history. More than 100 people died during the campaign, with the country disrupted by strikes, blockades, and violent clashes between police and opposition supporters.

The controversy started well before the country went to the polls on 5 January. Since 1996, Bangladesh has held elections under a neutral caretaker government. In 2010, Hasina’s Awami League party, buoyed by a strong parliamentary majority, decided to abolish the provision. The opposition, Zia’s Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) took issue with this, saying that a fair election could not be guaranteed without a neutral body overseeing it. The Awami League would not set up a caretaker government. The BNP boycotted the election.

Hasina decided to go ahead with the poll. Inevitably, her party – unopposed in 153 of the country’s 300 constituencies – won. But, equally inevitably, the validity of a contest in which there was only one real option has been questioned. The election result was also undermined by an unusually low turnout, with the government putting the figure at under 40 per cent and others reporting far less than that.

This was not just to do with voters choosing not to vote, but with a systematic campaign of intimidation and violence by supporters of the opposition BNP. Enforcing blockades, strikes, and boycotts, supporters of the BNP and their allies, the Jamaat-e-Islami, petrol bombed buses carrying workers, and set fire to shops that had opened in defiance of the strikes.

“The violence perpetrated against people who have not complied with the opposition call is a criminal act and it is the responsibility of the government to bring the attackers to justice,” says Abbas Faiz, Bangladesh researcher for Amnesty International. “But the majority of people who died during the two months of elections died from gunshot wounds. There is a strong possibility the police may have used excessive force.” Amnesty is calling for immediate investigations to identify the perpetrators of attacks, and to establish whether the force used by police was lawful. In a statement, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon called on “all sides to exercise restraint and ensure first and foremost a peaceful and conducive environment, where people can maintain their right to assembly and expression.”

Elections in Bangladesh tend to be big public events, with people getting up early to join famously long queues and proudly displaying their ink stained fingers. Yet people in the capital Dhaka during this year’s election described an eerie calm. Voting took place in just nine of 20 seats in the city. There were vicious attacks on the country’s Hindu minority, who make up around 10 per cent of the population and tend to support the Awami League.

The consensus seems to be that both of the main parties are equally culpable for the farce that the election has descended into. An editorial in the country’s Daily Star newspaper said that the Awami League had won “a predictable and hollow victory, which gives it neither a mandate nor an ethical standing to govern effectively”. Its verdict on Zia and her associates was no better: “Political parties have the right to boycott elections. But what is unacceptable is using violence and intimidation to thwart an election.”

The election chaos comes after a year of ugly political violence in Bangladesh: around 500 people were killed in political clashes during 2013, making it one of the most violent years since independence in 1971. This began with a mass popular movement against religious fundamentalism. Named the Shahbag movement, after the area of Dhaka where it began, the protests swiftly triggered a backlash from the religious right and their supporters. Much of this polarisation – between secularists and Islamists – had been precipitated by the government’s war crimes tribunal. Prosecuting people for crimes committed during the war of independence in 1971, the tribunal has reopened old tensions. Islamists claim it is being used to shut down the opposition, while secularists argue that the sentences (which include the death penalty) are not harsh enough.

Now, several weeks after the election, the political system remains in crisis. Zia is effectively under house arrest, while Hasina’s victory is seen across the board as empty. International and domestic observers alike say that the only way forward is for the two women to sit down together and hammer out a compromise. With early elections expected within the next 18 months, and with political uncertainty and violence continuing, this is ever more pressing.

This article was published on 21 January 2014 at indexoncensorship.org

Bangladesh: A long road ahead

To end the deadlock, the two main parties should give all groups a voice in the political process

NAYMA QAYUM

Bangladesh's political crisis is not going away anytime soon. On January 5, the country went to the polls in an election that was largely one-sided. Since 1996, Bangladesh has held elections under a neutral caretaker government. However, the ruling Awami League (AL) has now scrapped a constitutional provision for neutral electoral oversight, and the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) boycotted the Tenth Parliamentary Elections without this provision.

One may certainly question the legitimacy of these elections: They were far from representative. The AL was set to win by default, as BNP had not registered for the election by the end of the registration period. AL candidates won 153 of the 300 parliamentary seats without any contestation. In the capital, Dhaka, citizens only voted in nine out of the 20 constituencies.

Nor is an election acceptable, if citizens do not vote. Fewer than 40 percent of the population turned up at the polls according to the government; others report the number as far less. Some voters stayed away from voting booths for fear of violence. CNN reports one polling officer as saying, "Presence of voters today is lower than any other time of voting."

Members of the international community have also questioned the validity of these elections. Although the United Nations did not formally declare the need for a re-election, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged both parties to exercise restraint and urgently address the people's expectations for an inclusive political process. Australia, Europe, and the United States called for fresh elections to be held.

Political violence a norm

Bangladesh is likely to descend into further violence without new elections. The country is certainly no stranger to political instability. Its violent birth in 1971 was followed by numerous coups and violent strikes as authoritarian governments toppled each other and later gave way to parliamentary democracy in 1991. Electoral violence is not a new phenomenon either. However, the January election is a huge step back after the successful and internationally acclaimed elections of 2008.

The country cannot move forward without a real opposition. AL leader Sheikh Hasina was sworn in as prime minister with the AL-allied Jatiya Party (JP) as the leading opposition in the parliament. The excluded BNP opposition, however, is not likely to stand down.

BNP demonstrations and strikes have paralysed Bangladesh since last year, and the party has continued its protests after the election. However, BNP is now operating within significant constraints. Opposition leader Khaleda Zia has just been released after two weeks of house arrest. Many opposition members are in hiding after the arrest of dozens of party members and police raids on their homes. However, the BNP movement shows no signs of abating. A key BNP leader has recently called the new AL government immoral, illegal, and autocratic and the party is now calling for a new election.

The BNP may, however, have to detach from its former coalition partner, the country's main Islamic party Jamaat-e-Islami (JI). BNP has stood by its ally as JI leaders were tried by a war crimes tribunal for mass atrocities committed against the Bangladeshi population during the 1971 liberation war. A High Court decision has since led the Election Commission to cancel Jamaat's registration, and on-going JI-instigated violence has even prompted one European diplomat to call the JI a terrorist organisation.  

At the same time, Sheikh Hasina plans to keep the AL in power. She shrugged off all doubts regarding the legitimacy of her victory at a press conference. The New York Times reported that when a journalist asked her whether she believed that the election would bring further instability, she said, "What do you want, that I should start crying, 'Oh, crisis, we have a crisis!' Do you want that?" Bangladesh's newly sworn prime minister appears oblivious to the ongoing violence. However, according to the Times a close aid to the prime minister said that he was certain that new elections would occur, although a new opposition coalition was also expected to fill the power vacuum and attract breakaway factions from the BNP.

Decades of strife 

The irreconcilable differences between the AL and the BNP signal the failure of democratic institutions in Bangladesh. Bangladesh was not simply stuck in an impasse as the parties traded power for two decades. Rather, the political system has gradually disintegrated as institutions have failed to regulate politics and society.  

Bangladesh's gradual institutional weakening was overshadowed by the country's remarkable success in economic and human development. And this deadlock may now cost the country its economic and political future; major donors are considering the withdrawal of aid unless the crisis abates. Donor pull-out can have devastating consequences for the lives and livelihoods of vulnerable groups, as the country's development strategy relies heavily on foreign aid.

The newly sworn Awami League government may lack legitimacy with the people, but it must be the one to pull Bangladesh out of this mess. The government needs to pursue political stability as its foremost goal. Failing to do so would be disastrous for the country's growing, but now stalled economy, especially for the informal labour and agrarian workers. A crackdown on the opposition would only worsen the AL's already declining credibility with the people. Under these circumstances, a credible and representative new election is the only viable option.

The AL should also consider bringing back the caretaker government. A non-elected body has its disadvantages: In 2006, an unelected caretaker government stayed in power for over two years as the country prepared for an election. However, this is the third time in Bangladesh's history that the opposition's demand for neutral electoral oversight has brought politics to a standstill. The caretaker government has more credibility with the people than one would expect of an unelected body. Bangladesh experienced its biggest surge in voter turnout during the two elections where a caretaker government supervised the polls after a prolonged period of political unrest (1996, 2008). Electoral turnout rose from 55.5 percent in 1991, to 75.6 percent in 1996; and from 75 percent in 2001, to 85.3 percent in 2008.

New way forward

If the caretaker government is reinstated, its selection mechanism must be reformed. In order to be legitimate, the caretaker government must be selected by representatives of all political groups and through an inclusive process. The government does not have to start from scratch on such an effort. It can draw on the experience and infrastructure of various NGOs and civil society groups that have sufficient experience in creating dialogue across groups.

The government must also review its institutional practices. The current crisis can be traced back to an institutional decay that has silently crept up on politics and society. The parliament needs to be revived; the opposition should refrain from calling hartals and walking out of parliament, and instead, engage in responsible and meaningful dialogue. It is important for all parties to respect existing rules instead of constantly changing them to suit their needs. However, these rules must be created through inclusive processes and not just serve the party in power.

Bangladesh has a long and difficult path ahead. A long-term solution requires more than a new poll. Bangladesh has held elections since its independence in 1971, but ruling parties have monopolised all governing institutions. The country remains far from the democratic ideal that its constitution enshrines - its multiparty governments can, at best, be labelled electoral authoritarian regimes. However, only a genuinely representative political system can bring stability to Bangladesh should the two parties continue to coexist.

Future governments must strengthen governing institutions and give all groups a voice in politics. If not, the two parties may find themselves in another deadlock in five years.

First appeared in Al Jazeera news portal, 18 January 2014

Nayma Qayum is a PhD candidate in Political Science at the Graduate Center, City University of New York. Follow her on Twitter: @naymaqayum

The Bangladesh Paradox

File photo: Voters long queue during parliamentary election in a small town in Bangladesh

WILLIAM B MILAM

Bangladesh is in crisis mode again. Every five years, as predictable as its annual monsoon, but not nearly as monotonous, comes the quinqennial political crisis. These occur because the Constitution mandates a general election every five years, and elections bring on crisis because incumbent parties spare no effort, no matter how legally or morally questionable, to win re-election. The opposition’s scruples are no less reprehensible, however lacking they are in constitutional mechanisms to manipulate to their advantage. Violence, and sometimes extreme violence, is at the top of the election tool box of both parties.

And yet, no incumbent party has ever been re-elected in the era of electoral politics, because in every election, the record of the party in power is such that the voters are desperate to give the opposition a chance to show it can do better. The voters are always disappointed. In Bangladesh politics, as in all politics in all countries, hope repeatedly triumphs over experience. This year is the same: the polls show that a free and fair election would bring the opposition to power; and the government has done all in its power, and perhaps if the Constitution and Supreme Court are read literally, a lot that is not legally in its power, to remain in office.

Currently, the political impasse over election procedures has led the opposition to threaten to boycott the election and to launch a violent blockade of Dhaka. The opposition assumes that an election without the participation of the other half of the polity would be regarded by, at least, half the voters and by the outside world, as illegitimate. The loss of life is mounting, not just among the party apparatchiks, but among innocent bystanders, yet the government shows no signs of agreeing.

Business leaders and most of civil society, as well as the international community, are crying for an agreement between the two party leaders. Many in civil society want a ‘recess’ from politics, the elements of which range from: 1) postponing the election for a few months until things are worked out; to 2) a ‘reset pause’ which is a euphemism for a military intervention and a technocratic government devoted to rebuilding institutions and reforming the parties.

It didn’t work before, so why would it work now? The answer to that lies, probably in a riddle called ‘The Bangladesh Paradox’. That paradox is that Bangladesh defies modernisation theory, which remains the intellectual foundation of much development activity. Simply put, this theory is that political development is linked to high sustained rates of economic growth, lowered rates of poverty, marked improvement in social indicators such as education, literacy, public health. In other words, a rising tide of income and social advancement raises all boats, and through growth and advancement of the middle class, democratic structures and institutions, and thus democracy itself, will follow inevitably.

There is no empirical evidence for this conclusion and, in fact, much evidence against it (China, Malaysia, among others). Bangladesh has achieved GDP growth of five-six per cent for almost 20 years; its social indicators are better than India (and grossly better than Pakistan) and probably only surpassed in South Asia by Sri Lanka. So, why has it marched backward on the authoritarian/democratic axis towards a more authoritarian state? The primary reason is surely that formal democracy, lacking the checks and balances of real democracy, has hollowed out its institutions by turning them into mechanisms for the ruling party (either one) to extract the growing economic rents to be had from an expanding economy.

The reaction of most outsiders to the present crisis is that things will work out as they always have. In past crises, the incumbent party always had to give up and the opposition took office, to restore balance if not functionality. But history does not always repeat itself. If the government actually goes forward with its planned one-party election, the ensuing violence could bring it down and/or make another election necessary, which the opposition would probably win. That is, sadly, the best-case scenario. The alternative is worse, a government which, because of the perverted institutions of the state, is in a position to eliminate the opposition as a force to be reckoned with, and move towards a one-party state. This election, Instead of deja vu all over again, could be the tipping point to something entirely new on the subcontinent.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 10, 2013

William B Milam served as US ambassador to Pakistan from 1998 to 2001. He is also Senior Policy Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C.