Usually, general elections, which decide which party should form the next government and rule the country, are held in Bangladesh after five years. But this was not the case several times since several elections were held in less than five years and more than five years. For example, the first general elections were held in 1973, while the second one was held after 6 years in 1979. From the third general elections (in 1986) to the fifth one (in 1991), it took only five years. Even if the 6th general elections were held in 1996, the seventh one was held in the same years. But since then, general elections are being held almost regularly, with the exception of the two years rule of the caretaker government from 2007-2008. This is obviously an improvement in the politics of Bangladesh.
Bu the question is whether elections are free and fair in Bangladesh. In fact, most elections are not rendered as free, fair and credible, even if there are differences in terms of the degree of electoral manipulations. Elections held n 1991 are considered to be the freest and fairest in the history of Bangladesh. Besides, elections held in 1996 (June) are also considered to be free and fair, though the other two elections held under the caretaker government especially in 2001 and 2008 are criticized by many to be partisan favoring. But most elections held under the government in power were unfree and unfair. In addition to the elections held in 1996 (February), elections held in 2018 are rendered to be massively manipulated by the party in power.
Electoral irregularities occur before the election and during the election. From different available sources, it reasonably appears that the electoral playing field is not fair to all competing parties on most occasions. While the incumbent enjoys every aspect of electoral campaign activities, opposition parties often remain deprived of these. Opposition parties and candidates are in disadvantageous situations in terms of access to state and non-state resources, access to arbiters — the election commission, law-enforcing agencies and the judiciary — and access to media. On some occasions, leaders and activists of oppositions are arrested and attacked especially when elections are held under the political government. But on other occasions, especially when elections are held under the non-party caretaker government, leaders and activists of recently past party in power are arrested. Consequently, electoral campaigns are affected.
On the election-day, as it further appears, many voters cannot cast their votes, especially when elections are held under the party in power. Of those who cast votes, many cannot cast votes in secret ballot papers, as they are bound on many occasions to cast votes in the presence of the political cadres of the incumbent. There are considerable criticisms that activists and supporters of opposition parties are sometimes threatened not to go to a polling center. Indeed, national elections are marred by some common irregularities — voter intimidation, vote-rigging, ballot paper stuffing, preventing voters from going to polling centers, capturing of polling centers and the cast of votes of other voters with force, ouster of polling agents of opposition parties, etc. — by political activists of the incumbent. Sometimes, it is criticized that votes are cast at night before the election. Also, there are credible criticisms that election-day electoral irregularities occurred in many areas in the presence of the officials responsible for conducting polls and law-enforcing agencies. Consequently, this election was not competitive at all.
Of course, there are diverse reasons for unfree, unfair and unacceptable elections in Bangladesh. One of the main reasons is the government system during elections. The party in power usually intends to stay in power at any cost. On some occasions, the party in power remains in the control of the state power with the dissolution of the parliament. But there are occasions of staying in power during the elections without dissolving the parliament, meaning that members of the parliament who are competitors in elections also remain in power. Since the party in power has the opportunity to include, different government institutions including the Election Commission — a statutory body responsible for holding elections in Bangladesh — and supportive government departments or agencies extensively support the party in power. Consequently, the party in power remains much more ahead before and during elections in the country.
However, this is not the case always. Elections held under the caretaker government do not appear to be uncritical altogether. Although the elections held in 1991 and 1996 (June) are widely rendered as free and fair, two elections held in 2001 and 2008 do not appear to be free and fair. Though there are no or limited electoral irregularities on the day of elections, there were actions that made the electoral playing field indirectly unfair leading to landslide victory of the BNP in 2001 and the BAL in 2008. For example, leaders of the BAL were randomly arrested by the law enforcing agencies after the oath of the then caretaker government for making electoral environment enabling for holding free and fair elections in 2001. Leaders of the BNP, with some variations, were arrested much more than the BAL before the 2008 elections. Such an unwise approach resulted in another imbalance in the local electoral context in which leaders and activists of the immediate past government faced much more challenges and difficulties.
Because of pre-election and election-day irregularities, most national elections raise a very important question: Is the resultant political governments of those elections, especially which are marred by significant pre-election and/election-day irregularities, are actual representatives of people? Of course, the actual representativeness of any government, particularly in democratic countries, primarily depends on people’s actual choice through their votes in a free and fair election. Since many voters could not cast their votes on many occasions, their votes were stamped on many occasions and there are many other irregularities noted above, electoral results and the formation of government seem unreflective of peoples’ actual choices and, hence, the above question seems to be justified for a number of national elections of the country.
Without a doubt, the incumbents at different had the opportunity to show that free and fair elections are possible in this country under the party-in-power government system through the reflections of the desired roles and, at the same time, rejection of the electoral culture of manipulations by the party in power. On the other hand, the care taker government could also ensure genuinely free and fair general elections in Bangladesh especially in 2001 and 2008. Because of the direct manipulation of administrative power by the party in power and indirect favor of (at least) two caretaker governments, holding free, fair and credible elections in the genuine or acceptable sense has remained far away on most occasions in Bangladesh.
I think that only free, fair and credible elections, particularly through adequately addressing all reasonable concerns with all controversial elections, can help reflect people’s actual choice in elections, reasonably answer to the question of representativeness and expectedly improve the overall political culture of Bangladesh. Indeed, elections are free and fair under the party-in-power in many countries. Such an electoral culture is usually preferable because it indicates trust among political parties and responsibleness of political leaders. Since there are many problems in holding free and fair elections under the party-in-power, more needs to be done, along with making an effective Election Commission. In this respect, all political parties including the BAL need to come to an acceptable solution.
