On January 7, many people will not vote, but many others probably will. There are voters, not just first-timers, who are aching to go out even if just to see the inside of that hallowed ground called a polling booth. Having been twice disenfranchised through elections that have since passed into the annals of democracy as examples of "managed elections" or "elections without choice," it is safe to assume that these people would be desperate, seeking, even seething. Partisans will be happy to oblige calls for casting their ballot and add bodies to the count, like the tin soldiers on a game board; dissenters will be there to make a point; and those in between will be there because, well, they just would like to.

You've already met the dummy candidates, aka independents. Now, meet dummy voters.

For what are voters without any real choice, or power, if not glorified dummies? Now that BNP and like-minded parties are out of the race and unable to scupper its re-election plan, Awami League can again safely trust in voters. People can have the satisfaction, however temporary, of voting against it, or for it, and the party can have the satisfaction of still coming out victorious. In a climate described by a columnist as being "of the AL, for the AL, and by the AL," with it handpicking both its candidates and rivals, the outcome is a foregone conclusion. The dummies are just there to make the inevitable happen.

How much of a choice do general voters really have in this suffocating situation? Even if we disregard the "fear" factor playing in the background, voters, in a democracy, are entitled to have credible options to choose from, which clearly they don't at the moment. Their role has been reduced to that of a helpless participant, treasured so long as they are useful, with no guarantee of even coming out of this fruitless exercise unscathed. In other words, not only are people not getting to vote for whomever they want, but they cannot even not cast their votes. Even dissenters who are planning to vote as a protest will inevitably be strengthening the hands of the orchestrators of this catch-22 situation.

It is, therefore, no longer the sole responsibility of the Election Commission to ensure voters' presence at the polling booths. It is Awami League's too, and the party is going out of its way to get them to the booths—even those who are not happy with the government. Speaking to reporters, an influential leader from Narayanganj said, "Our appeal to voters is, vote for whomever you want. Don't vote for me [if you don't want to], but do still come to the polling station and vote, because it is your right. Don't squander your right. You have no right to criticise the government if you don't vote." Regardless of the problematic line of reasoning, the call to vote, for once, seems genuine.

Read more

Forced voting to fool the world?

But there is still a tightrope to walk lest the motley assortment of independents, fake challengers, and allies-in-disguise somehow outperform Awami League in the final vote count, thus staging the biggest coup in the history of managed elections. It will be something of a disaster for the party's rank and file if, after all the scheming and browbeating and in the absence of any real opposition, it doesn't have a landslide victory. But it will be equally disastrous if it does—at least for its attempt to show a competitive election to the outside world. So voters have their job cut out for them: they will be expected to vote against AL, but not too zealously, so that a decent, respectable-looking victory can be achieved in the end.

Read more

A Potemkin election in Bangladesh?

In such a hazy situation, we can only speculate about what the minds behind Awami League's re-election campaign are really thinking. It is a testament to the complexities of this election, and the expanding AL multiverse, that so many conflicting theories seem plausible at the same time. The official line is an insufficient measure for understanding the whole situation, and can be at odds with the messages coming from grassroots. For example, how to ensure the presence (and compliance) of voters? Partisan voters are not a problem but they don't likely form the majority either, despite extravagant claims by the party of having 70 percent of the total population ready to vote for it. So, there seems to be a "carrot and stick" policy afoot to both court and intimidate general voters.

Read more

Elections without choice: A leaf out of autocrats’ playbook

Officially, besides frequent entreaties to vote, Awami League has already trained over 200,000 campaign workers, each responsible for bringing 200 voters to their local polling station, as part of an offline scheme. Unofficially, there have been a number of instances of threats being issued to noncompliant voters since the election campaign began. Among them were threats of breaking the hands and legs of opposition supporters, cutting non-voters or dissenting voters off from social safety net benefits, cutting off their utility lines, etc. These warnings are not to be taken lightly considering how swift past retributions were, and how a big party like BNP was all but incapacitated within mere months through mass arrests, ghost cases, and rushed convictions. According to the finance ministry, there were more than 1.28 crore beneficiaries of social safety net programmes in the 2022-23 fiscal year. BNP has alleged that the government is "targeting" these beneficiaries to fill up polling booths.

Read more

How to make dissenters out of citizens

How much of a choice do general voters really have in this suffocating situation? Even if we disregard the "fear" factor playing in the background, voters, in a democracy, are entitled to have credible options to choose from, which clearly they don't at the moment. Their role has been reduced to that of a helpless participant, treasured so long as they are useful, with no guarantee of even coming out of this fruitless exercise unscathed. In other words, not only are people not getting to vote for whomever they want, but they cannot even not cast their votes. Even dissenters who are planning to vote as a protest will inevitably be strengthening the hands of the orchestrators of this catch-22 situation.

Read more

The facade of a competitive election

What Awami League seems to want is a restaging of the 2014 election minus the stigma of unopposed wins and voter-less polling booths. This is being done "to fool the world," as a columnist of this daily has recently argued. However, it cannot take away from the unfolding farce of an election that will be fair, competitive and participatory on paper but none of the above in reality, whether the world acknowledges it or not.

Badiuzzaman Bay is assistant editor at The Daily Star.

Views expressed in this comment 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.

Coming a year before the general election, and nearly a year after the formation of the incumbent Election Commission, it is natural that the six by-polls held Wednesday would be viewed against the wider political backdrop. It was, therefore, frustrating to know how little things have changed, despite the relative lack of violence, which would have been something to look out for under different circumstances. It's quite evident now that any changes, or promises of changes, made over the past year or so only cemented the status quo, which doesn't bode well for our electoral future.

Read more

Calling the by-polls 'free and fair' dims hope for 2024

If we're to pick a word to summarise the by-polls, it would be "absence" – absence of voters, absence of interest from the wider society, absence of strong safeguards against irregularities, absence of main opposition BNP, whose lawmakers' resignation from parliament had led to the by-polls. Voter turnout was poor in all the six constituencies. As per an estimate, only about 28 percent of voters showed up, in a trend that has been persistent throughout all local elections and by-polls held over the last few years. The predictable nature of election outcomes, and the lack of trust about the neutrality of responsible state departments, seem to have caused ennui and despair among the people.

Read more

Two by-polls, 29 years apart – yet so similar?

It seems almost futile to ask why the Election Commission is failing to address voter apathy despite repeated appeals from election observers. The EC, after the latest by-polls, again stuck to its "peaceful and well-organised" narrative, even though we have received reports of various election-related irregularities from a number of constituencies. The EC's failure to recognise that the mere appearance of elections is not enough is really alarming. We need fair and participatory elections. And we need the EC to restore the trust of all voters and opposition parties alike.

Read more

Will pre-election politics remain peaceful or become violent?

Another major concern about the by-polls is the "disappearance" of the main rival of the eventual winner in the Brahmanbaria-2 by-poll. This by-poll – which saw a voter turnout of less than 16 percent, the lowest of all constituencies – has been in the news ever since the winner, expelled BNP leader Abdus Sattar Bhuiyan, was backed by the ruling Awami League, which didn't field a candidate there. Abu Asif Ahmed, an independent candidate, has been missing for about a week now. Which makes us wonder: why is nothing being done to find him? What message does it send to the political opponents of the ruling party? And how long will the EC refuse to address the concerns of the opposition parties?

Read more

Is the EC fighting an unwinnable war?

The culture of fear, distrust and criminality that still plagues our electoral system must be removed, and the ruling party must play a leading role in this. Lack of violence in one election means nothing given how political violence and repression continue to occur in every other sphere. If anything, the recent by-polls have shown that we have remained stuck in the same spot for too long, and the authorities must allow genuine reforms to break this status quo. They must help create a level playing field for all parties, and restore public trust in the function of the electoral system.

Firstly, I find it impossible to call what's happening on January 7 an election in any way. People already know who will occupy government positions, who will sit in opposition, and even who will win which seats. An election without uncertainty, where people lack the power to determine their representatives through voting, is a mere facade of an election.

Read more

What comes after January 7?

Secondly, the voters do not have any real choice. Whether you pick candidates from Awami League, independent candidates (who are really representing AL in disguise), AL ally Jatiya Party, or candidates from any of AL's partner factions, it all leads to the same outcome: an Awami League dominance. Without options for voter representation, the January 7 event cannot be termed an election.

Thirdly, the escalating violence leading up to election day within Awami League factions in about every constituency paints a terrifying picture. I wonder, if this trend of violence continues, whether the drama staged to take place on the 7th will even be possible to conduct.

We already know that only a small group of experts will observe the election and that most major countries will not send their observers. International media outlets have already labelled this election as a "one-woman show" and a "one-horse electoral race."

Read more

‘Why would Awami League need to resort to rigging in this scenario?’

Considering everything, I see no reason to call this an election. It's a pre-written affair, and the public will bear the brunt of its outcome. Bangladesh's economic crisis will worsen, and the suffering we are already enduring will only be amplified in the future.

Rumeen Farhana is barrister-at-law and former whip of Bangladesh Nationalist Party.

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.

So far, we have written a lot about the general election and how the ruling party and the present government have miserably failed (in fact, they never really tried) to create an appropriate atmosphere for a free and fair election. We have also written highly critical pieces regarding the way in which they have treated the main opposition, BNP, with hundreds sentenced, thousands arrested, and many thousands more on the run to stay out of the police's clutches. Our legal system stands weaponised to punish the dissenters, with the police having been given full immunity to misuse their powers to punish, harass and intimidate political opponents, terrorising them beyond belief.

But what about the other side? Did BNP play its part in living up to the wishes of its workers, leave alone the wishes of the people who are dissatisfied with the government and disillusioned with the Awami League? Was BNP's decision to boycott the election taken in any consultative manner, or was it simply imposed on the party workers?

Read more

Column by Mahfuz Anam: Is Awami League heading towards a Pyrrhic victory?

Given the tradition of anti-incumbency among our voters, the unending stories of misuse of power, corruption, and the nepotism in AL, it is not unreasonable to think that people may have wanted a change. Did BNP build on that? Our own reporters' briefings, the studies that remain unpublished for fear of reprisal, and the rumoured intelligence reports all suggest that support for the opposition was considerable, if not overwhelming. What did BNP do with that support?

Immediately after the 2018 election, BNP declared that it would not participate in any future election under the AL regime, and demanded a caretaker government. Its division-level mobilisation late last year resulted in massive rallies despite severe obstacles, such as transport strikes and various impediments imposed by the government. It gave the BNP and its sympathisers the impression that the party's campaign was bearing fruit.

This election boycott would be the BNP's second one. There are no instances in our region—perhaps none in other democracies either—of a political party surviving after boycotting two elections over a span of one decade. Could this situation present an existential problem for the BNP?

However, perhaps missing in its calculation was how overwhelming the governmental response would be, and when it came, how BNP would tackle it. Alarmed by the public support for BNP, the ruling party unleashed all sorts of undemocratic and extralegal measures to curb the opposition. The actions post-October 28—most oppressive, by any standard—severely affected the BNP's capacity to continue its programmes. The arrest of the party's secretary general, followed by arrests of many top BNP leaders (and with the rest being kept on the run), literally incapacitated this massive party.

To put it simply: BNP launched a movement to oust AL from power—demanding a caretaker government amounts to that—without adequate preparation, and this is now becoming more and more evident. The BNP failed to reap anything effective from the huge public support that it was able to garner late last year.

BNP also made the fatal mistake of not having a Plan B. Demanding Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's removal from power was bound to trigger retaliation. There seems to have been no clear thinking on how to survive that. If the purpose was to loosen the incumbents' hold on the election mechanism, there could have been proposals for power-sharing during elections, or select portfolios being given to the opposition or neutral people under some constitutional arrangement agreed to by both sides. Since the role of police is the key during elections, there could have been special proposals for reducing the ruling party's hold on them. Alternative views would have shown voters that BNP was flexible and open to negotiations. Shutting down all prospects of this was another vital mistake on the BNP's part. This is where the "external pressure" that the BNP was counting on felt completely let down. In all the talks that the BNP had with ambassadors, none supported the idea of an election under a caretaker government, while all insisted on the need for a free and fair election, for Bangladesh's own democratic future. BNP did not absorb this message.

Read more

Placing dummies as alternatives disenfranchises voters

It can be argued that AL never really wanted BNP in the poll contest in the first place, and that BNP never realised that its boycott was actually serving the AL's goal of keeping it out of the political process as a whole.

It appears that the biggest opposition party never really conducted any in-depth analysis as to whether a boycott would really serve its long-term interests. One wonders what lessons the BNP learnt from its boycott of the 2014 election, if any. Among many other issues, it can be argued that, had the BNP not boycotted the 2014 election, Khaleda Zia would not have lost her position as the leader of the opposition and perhaps would not have faced persecution and incarceration. Even if that had happened, Begum Khaleda Zia would have been far better placed to fight those cases as the leader of the opposition than as just a political leader. Her eclipse from having an active role in leading the party has had a devastating impact on the BNP. Could this have happened if the party hadn't boycotted the election in 2014? Did it take any of this into account?

This election boycott would be the BNP's second one. There are no instances in our region—perhaps none in other democracies either—of a political party surviving after boycotting two elections over a span of one decade. Could this situation present an existential problem for the BNP?

BNP's approach appears to be that, unless assured of victory, the party deems it of no use to participate in the election—a fatal mistake, in our view. The advantage of being a powerful opposition never seems to have appealed to BNP. It did not consider that the parliament would provide a powerful forum through which to propagate its own policies and visions for the future, and thereby create an image of it as a viable alternative.

The truth is, however sad and damaging it may have been for the growth of parliamentary democracy in Bangladesh, neither of our two big parties ever took the role of being the opposition seriously. Both AL and BNP always wanted power, and never the role of a responsible critic to keep the government in check.

As said earlier, anti-incumbency, a government's failures, widespread corruption, and arrogance have all contributed to a feeling for a need for change, which the BNP failed to build on. It might not have gotten the majority votes to form the next government, but it definitely could have formed a powerful opposition, giving it an effective stage to strive for power in 2029. But such a strategy does not appear to have interested BNP at all. It was an "all or nothing" gambit that led BNP to opt for boycotting the election, for which the country and democracy will have to pay a high price.

Read more

Column by Mahfuz Anam: Towards a 'free and fair' election, indeed

If BNP had decided to participate in the election, there would have been 300 BNP (or, in partnership with others) nominees in every nook and corner of the country campaigning for themselves and exposing AL's corruption, power abuse, and misdeeds. The campaign itself would have held the ruling party to some account and significantly strengthened BNP's hold on the public mind. If nothing else, BNP's campaign itself would have had some sobering effect on the ruling party. Its participation would have encouraged foreign observers to take notice, which definitely would have helped to make our election better.

Today, BNP supporters are nothing more than mere onlookers as village after village prepares for the polls, now buoyed by the participation of AL's "rebel" candidates.

Today, all BNP can do is call hartals that nobody follows, enforce blockades which are nowhere to be seen, and declare mass protests that are practically non-existent. All that the opposition on the streets are able to do is create disruptions, which further raise questions about its success.

What a pitiable state to be in for our second-largest political party.

Mahfuz Anam is the editor and publisher of The Daily Star.

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.

This week marks one year of the incumbent Election Commission (EC) in office, which also coincided with the National Voters' Day. Far from being an occasion for celebration, however, the reigning mood appears to be one of trepidation, with the general election less than a year away. The biggest worry is, will people again be denied the opportunity to exercise their franchise? As things stand, it seems unlikely that the EC will succeed in holding free and fair elections. Despite all the talk of creating a level playing field for the political parties, so far, it has failed to make any progress in that respect. The ruling Awami League has routinely gotten away with obstructing political programmes held by BNP in the most blatant of ways.

Read more

EC in second year must do a better job

While demands made by the ruling party have been given priority over the concerns expressed by the opposition – for example, over the use of electronic voting machines (EVMs) – another factor that is of great concern is the negligible involvement of voters in the election process. Tussles between the main political parties have dominated the election narrative ever since this EC took over a year ago, just like they did during the tenures of the previous two ECs. And the role and space for voters have continued to shrink to historic lows. The appalling voter turnout in recent local elections and parliamentary by-polls illustrated the lack of confidence in the EC's ability – partly due to the partisan role of the administration and partly due to its own unwillingness to take firm action – to oversee a fair transfer of power. That, of course, should come as no surprise after what happened during the last two general elections of 2014 and 2018.

Read more

AL needs to hold accountable its members

Besides the endless political controversies, harassment and intimidation of voters, denying them the chance to vote for their preferred candidates and, in some cases, forcing them to vote for specific candidates, fraudulent voting in secret booths, ballot-box stuffing, and many other irregularities during the last two elections have all but destroyed our democratic process, as well as voters' willingness to participate in such farcical exercises. Unfortunately, despite initial promise, the current EC has been unable to reverse that perception with its questionable handling of election-related irregularities. Many have rightly raised the question that if the EC cannot control the administration and law enforcement personnel during local elections, what hope does it have of doing so during the general elections where the stakes are much higher?

Read more

Attacks on BNP are condemnable

The EC itself has done little to alleviate such concerns. And the recent statement by the chief election commissioner – that political parties should participate in the election of their own volition, as the EC cannot do anything more to persuade them – is deeply worrying. How can the EC expect that when the conditions it has created so far are nowhere near satisfactory? For the sake of our democracy – or whatever is left of it anyway – the EC must do more to fulfil its constitutional mandate. It must ensure that power is returned to the people after two controversial and largely non-participatory elections.