With the main political opposition, BNP, boycotting the polls, January 7 is a settled affair—with the ruling Awami League and other contesting parties dividing up the seats between themselves. Currently, even the main opposition in parliament, Jatiya Party, has its stalwarts contesting the election as AL-endorsed candidates, as if to reassure everyone that they are not being so audacious as to challenge the ruling party. And considering that there is no other party (with a voter base of any significance) that is maverick enough to actually challenge ruling party candidates, the election outcome is all but a foregone conclusion. So the excitement and thrill that should have been centring the polls are absent. That Awami League will form the next government is common knowledge. However, who will form the opposition is still a matter of speculation. Thus, one might even say that this election is a quest to find an opposition, and not a decider of the government.

Read more

What comes after January 7?

Most of the independent candidates, especially the potential winners, are ruling party leaders who did not secure the nomination they were expecting. It is clear that, just as the election has turned into a stage-managed event, the opposition will also be a "sponsored" one.

That the ruling party is unmatched in willingness and cunning in regards to electoral politics goes without saying. What will, however, remain a challenge is voter turnout. At the recent by-elections in Dhaka-17 and Chattogram-10, the turnout was barely over 11 percent, whereas the ruling Awami League's historic vote bank consists of at least 35 percent of the entire voting population. This indicates that not even Awami League's own base shows up to vote for their candidates when the elections are stage-managed. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why ruling party candidates have taken various steps to boost voter presence at the polling booths. This included, in Thakurgaon-1 constituency, the AL candidate threatening the suspension of social safety net benefits for BNP supporters who do not go to vote. One must wonder whether this candidate even recognises that this is an intimidation tactic that could have him disqualified. In his defence, one might say that AL has been at the helm for so long that its members fail to see the distinction between a tax-funded state programme and a party initiative.

The essence of an election lies in voters' freedom to choose their preferred candidate. As such, elections need to be free, fair, and participatory. But when the options became limited to different shades of the ruling party, people lost their interest in voting.

The other challenge, of course, is to make the election look competitive, if not participatory, which is another way to compensate for BNP's boycott and demonstrate that voters are not being deprived of viable options. But this is hardly the case. Of the 44 registered political parties, 27 are contesting the polls. In other words, 63 percent parties are contesting, which is not too bad even though the main opposition camp is not taking part. However, besides three parties—Awami League, Jatiya Party, and Workers Party of Bangladesh—none of the 27 have secured more than one percent of the popular vote in the last 15 years. And, of these parties, 21 accounted for just three percent of popular votes altogether, while four parties are taking part in the election for the first time. Perhaps the most damning statistic is that Awami League saw its share of popular votes rise from 48 percent in 2008 to 74 percent in 2018, which points to the obvious: that voters with other preferences are refraining from voting because they are not being presented with viable alternatives.

The essence of an election lies in voters' freedom to choose their preferred candidate. As such, elections need to be free, fair, and participatory. But when the options became limited to different shades of the ruling party, people lost their interest in voting, too. Sure, BNP could be blamed for not taking part in the election. But, in its defence, one should point out that it had also boycotted the 2014 election but was unable to move public opinion or conduct a strong enough street campaign to topple the government (as Awami League had done in 1996). In the 2018 election, in which BNP did take part, the election result was so overwhelmingly in favour of Awami League (thanks to its blatant engineering) that even the AL party hawks were embarrassed at their supposed election landslide. This time, BNP was adamant that elections be held under a caretaker government, which Awami League did not agree to, citing constitutional provisions. Now, BNP is actively trying to dissuade people from voting, having declared a general strike on election day. BNP leaders in Khulna have been especially innovative. As the last two elections saw a large number of "phantom" votes, leaders of BNP's Khulna unit went to a local graveyard and called upon the dead to "not rise from their graves and cast votes" on January 7.

Read more

Voters without choice are just glorified dummies

At the same time, election commissioners are making different comments about the fairness of the election. The election chief recently said, "It is not enough for polls to be fair." He said that "they must be credible" as well, to demonstrate their fairness. "We cannot allow incorrect perceptions. Our responsibility is to the people and the international community. The international community cannot be underestimated. After all, Bangladesh is part of the international community."

The very next day, Election Commissioner Md Anisur Rahman said that if the election failed to be free, fair, and credible then the state itself would fail.

It appears that the election officials have suddenly become invested in the quality of election beyond its optics, which is a certain shift from their course thus far. Such a shift can hardly amount to anything more than lip service this late in the game, but the comments do smack of an attempt to woo the same international community that the current regime has deliberately antagonised so far.

Bangladesh's 12th parliamentary election is likely going to be the first of about 50 national elections globally, as many countries are scheduled to go to the ballots this year, with over two billion voters. Of these 50 countries, some have matured democracies wherein transition of power is peaceful and transparent, while some have more fragile democratic dispensations. Then there are others with autocratic regimes, where the difference between the party and the state has all but disappeared and elections are a mere cosmetic exercise. It is difficult to say which category Bangladesh falls under in terms of its democratic standing. But what can be said with certainty is that no country aspiring for genuine democratic practices will seek to emulate the January 7 election.

Mohammad Al-Masum Molla is chief reporter at The Daily Star.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.

The pressing questions after the January 7 election are how the result and the electoral process will be considered by the international community and what impact it will have, if any, on the relationship with Bangladesh's external partners, especially the West. These questions have become important because of the series of events leading up to polling day and the low voter turnout.

The series of events since October 28 sent out the message that the ruling party had planned the election to ensure a victory. The absence of democratic behaviour is no longer hidden under the carpet. The persecution of leaders and activists of the opposition parties, especially the BNP, drew international attention and criticism. It was matched with other kinds of intrigue and machinations, such as fielding "dummy" candidates and using state apparatuses to ensure victory of the preferred candidates.

Read more

A review of the 2024 electoral drama

It was highlighted before the polling day that the goal of the incumbent Awami League was to draw a large number of voters to the polling stations. The party hoped that its supporters and supporters of the "independent" candidates would make up more than 50 percent of the voters. But January 7 showed how voters shied away from the polling booths. Then came events casting serious doubts about the turnout data. The Election Commission (EC) said around midday that the turnout was 18.5 percent, and around 3pm it was around 26 percent. But an hour later, as the polls closed, the official estimate was claimed to be 40 percent. That, too, was announced in a bizarre way. Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Kazi Habibul Awal, in a press briefing, said the turnout was about 28 percent, only to retract at the prodding of his colleagues and offered a new, higher number. However these numbers are presented in the future, their veracity will continue to dog the EC. Considering that the election was essentially uncontested, there was never any doubt about the victory of Sheikh Hasina and the AL, but the entire process has added further questions to her victory and the strength of her mandate.

As for the reactions of the international community, there was the predictable part—those who had already supported the incumbent have already sent congratulatory messages. These are India, China and Russia, along with a few other nations. The "unknown unknown" part of the equation was the reactions of Western nations. These countries insisted on a free, fair and inclusive election, but have remained remarkably silent since October 28. The US reaction, expectedly, stated that the January 7 election was not free or fair. In a similar fashion, the UK said that the standards of credible and fair competitions were not consistently met during the 12th parliamentary election. The West will continue to consider not only the stray incidents of ballot stuffing and violence on January 7, but also how the entire process unfolded contrary to its efforts.

Read more

Economy hangs in the balance as Awami League hangs on to power

The US faces a dilemma: whether to reassess its relationship with Bangladesh and act robustly, or sidestep for a foreseeable picture. A robust action will demonstrate that it is returning to its divergence with India. Will Western countries go about a business-as-usual engagement with the "new" government? Notwithstanding the political aspect of it—an abandonment of its policy of democracy and human rights promotion—there is an institutional aspect to it too. For a long time, there have been security-related cooperation between the two countries, but leading to the election, evidently some of these institutions' integrity have been eroded as these have been blatantly used as political tools. If the US and the West adopt direct or indirect measures, there will be serious adverse impacts on Bangladesh's economy.

The predictable reactions of the trio—India, China and Russia—do not mean that the relationship between Bangladesh and these countries will continue as before. A contest between these nations, especially between China and India, will intensify to expand their sphere of influence. That will not be a matter of the distant future, but within a short period of time. Due to the ongoing economic crisis, Bangladesh will need to rely more on external support. This will bring Bangladesh and China closer, but how much closeness is acceptable for India is the question for the coming days. As such, whether the Western countries "act" or not, the country will continue to be the theatre of the Great Game.

Ali Riaz is distinguished professor of political science at Illinois State University in the US.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.

Missing BNP leader Salahuddin Ahmed’s wife today moved the High Court demanding judicial probe to locate the whereabouts of her husband.

She moved a petition with the High Court today seeking its directives on the law enforcers to locate Salahuddin who has been missing for about a month now.

During hearing, Hasina’s lawyer Moudud Ahmed sought HC’s order on the government to form a judicial probe body to locate Salahuddin.

Moudud also claimed to have information that Salahuddin was still alive. However, Hasina refuted to own the statement while talking to The Daily Star.

The HC bench of Justice Quamrul Islam Siddique and Justice Gobinda Chandra Tagore later adjourned the hearing till 2:30pm tomorrow.

Wife of Salahuddin, Hasina Ahmed, told the press that she got a call from the NIMHANS Mental Hospital authorities in Shillong at 12 noon today.

“I got a call from the hospital saying that my husband Salahuddin wants to talk to me. Then they connected me to him. He (Salahuddin) said ‘I am alive due to the blessings from all of you. Inshallah, I am well. I am reasonably in good health. Tell this to everybody’.”

She told the press that he did not tell her how he turned up at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences hospital.

She ruled out mistaking Salahuddin for someone else. “If I get to hear him even after 100 years, I would have no problem in identifying him, I know his voice” she said.

Wearing a pink printed saree, she appeared confident when she said, “I am trying my best to reach him as soon as possible.”

She said she needed support from all and especially from the government in getting a visa to go to India.