AL General Secretary Obaidul Quader formally inaugurated the selling of the nomination forms, reports UNB.
The party has fixed Tk 30,000 as the price for each nomination paper.
Yesterday, the Election Commission said that it is likely to announce the polls schedule on February 17 for 50 parliamentary seats exclusively reserved for women.
The reserved seats' distribution will reflect the seat share in the directly elected 300 constituencies. According to the proportional representation in the parliament, Awami League will get women MPs from 43 reserved seats, Jatiya Party from 4 seats, BNP from one, and others will fill out the last two.
Out of the 300 parliamentary constituencies across the country, Awami League won in 259 constituencies, while Jatiya Party in 20 seats, BNP in six seats, Workers' Party in three constituencies, Gano Forum, Jasod and Bikalpadhara each in two seats, Tarikat Federation and JP (Manju) each in one seat in the recently held 11th general election.
Besides, independent candidates were elected in three constituencies in the polls held on December 30 last.
One remaining constituency Gaibanda-3 will go to polls on January 27, after the election there was postponed earlier following the death of a candidate.
The Election Commission has a legal obligation to arrange the polls to the 50 reserved seats within 90 days after the gazette of general election result is published.
The directly-elected members of parliament are the voters of the election.
If the number of nominated candidates by a political party is equal to its reserved seats, the contenders will be declared elected unopposed immediate after the last date for withdrawal of candidacy.
Meanwhile, the Jatiya Party will start selling nomination paper from tomorrow for its four reserved seats, sources at the party told The Daily Star this afternoon.
Related News
Body:
Actress Mahiya Mahi entered the Dhallywood industry with the film "Bhalobasar Rong". Over the course of 11 years, Mahi has expanded her career beyond the film industry, making appearances in the field of politics through diverse platforms. The actress engaged in political activities for several months now, actively participating in various Awami League meetings. There were indications that she would participate in the 12th national elections for Awami League. This speculation was confirmed on Saturday. A representative of Mahi collected the party nomination form of Bangladesh Awami League from the Chapainawabganj-2 constituency. This confirmation was posted on Facebook.
Mahiya Mahi spoke with the media yesterday and stated that a representative has collected the nomination form on her behalf. The actress posed while holding the nomination form with her husband Rakib Sarkar, mother Dilara Yasmin, and father Abu Bakar Khokon and shared the image on her official Facebook page. She also confirmed that she will submit the collected nomination form on Monday.
Mahi said, "I am from Chapainawabganj so I have been working for the people there. Those people wanted me to buy a nomination form. The rest actually depends on the party and it will nominate whomever it deems worthy. Nevertheless, I maintain a hopeful outlook; those who are at the policy-making level of the party will make the final nomination after vetting the nominees."
When questioned about the reason for her decision to participate in the parliamentary elections, Mahi said, "As a public representative I will have the opportunity and possibility to work on a much larger scale in comparison to my current reach."
"The parliamentary seat of Chapainawabganj-2 encompasses three upazilas and presents a substantial area for impactful initiatives. Being a public representative offers a chance to make a significant difference, which might not be feasible for an ordinary individual. I believe that with determination, anything is achievable. From this perspective, I understand that if I were to become a Member of Parliament, I could undertake extensive efforts for the well-being of the people in that region. My primary focus would be on implementing substantial plans, particularly addressing the needs and concerns of the women in Chapainawabganj," she elaborated.
When asked about her intentions for women, Mahi stated, "Under the Awami League's tenure, thhas been significant progress in agriculture nationwide. Given that my region is also agriculturally inclined, I aspire to further enhance and support the agricultural sector."
"My primary focus will be on agriculture. Additionally, inspired by the exemplary leadership of the Honourable Prime Minister, who has demonstrated the essence of women's leadership and the importance of self-respect, I am committed to empowering the women of Chapainawabganj. My efforts will be directed towards fostering their progress and encouraging them to move forward with dignity," she said.
"My job would be to guide them to becoming independent women entrepreneurs right from the comfort of their homes. The objective is to enable women to earn income independently, allowing all female members of the family to achieve financial independence. Given that we reside in the era of Smart Bangladesh, the focus will be on utilising the country's technology to empower and create entrepreneurs seamlessly from one household to another," the hopeful actress explained.
Body:
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina today sought vote for "boat", the electoral symbol of Awami League, to reelect the party in the next general election for the sake of continuation of the country's development.
"Please cast your votes for boat to ensure continuation of the country's further development," Sheikh Hasina, also president of the ruling AL, made the call while addressing a mammoth rally on Sylhet Government Alia Madrasah ground this afternoon.
Hasina kicked off her party's electoral campaign through the today’s rally ahead of the 11th parliamentary election likely to be held at the end of this year.
Claiming that her party does politics for development of the country and its people, Hasina said Bangladesh has emerged as a role model of development in the world and it is progressing forward with the spirit of the Liberation War.
The prime minister also described BNP-Jamaat alliance as anti-liberation forces and blamed them for indulging in politics of violence and corruption during previous tenures.
Citing her government's achievement in curbing militancy in the country, Hasina said that militancy came into being during the regime of BNP-Jamaat alliance.
The prime minister went to Sylhet on a daylong visit earlier in the day. She also offered fateha at the shrines of Hazrat Shahjalal (RA), Hazrat Shah Paran (RA) and Hazrat Gazi Borhan Uddin (RA) in the city.
Hasina also inaugurated 18 development projects and laid the foundation stones of 17 others by unveiling their plaques from Sylhet Government Alia Madrasa ground in the afternoon.
Body:
THE 11th parliamentary election of Bangladesh will go down in history as the election of simultaneously many firsts and many contrasts. Billed as the country's first "participatory" election in a decade, it gave the incumbent Awami League a landslide victory—and reduced its arch-rival BNP, once again, to irrelevance. While an Awami League win was largely expected, the margin of victory surprised even its most hardcore supporters. To an outsider, an account of the whole electoral spectacle might read like the script of a Jason Statham movie in which there are twists and turns every step of the way, but in the end, it's the bad guy who always gets punished. In Bangladesh's politics, however, the "bad guy" is a relative term that has the same ideological elasticity as the "good guy". This kind of fluidity fuels the confusion with which the many conflicting details of this election were met.
That said, the 2018 election will remain statistically significant. It saw the confluence of a number of electoral records: it was the election in which ex-enclave voters were able to exercise their franchise for the first time; it also won Awami League a record third consecutive term in office, and fourth since democracy was "reinstated" in 1991; Awami League as a party has set a new bar for election victory after 259 out of its 262 candidates won their seats—with an incredible 98.85 percent success rate—which surpassed the 97.66 success rate registered in the 1973 election in which Awami League fielded 300 candidates and fetched 293 wins. On a personal level, AL chief Sheikh Hasina is set to rewrite a personal history as she becomes prime minister again, her third in a row. There were also several other records in terms of voter number, victory margin for the winning candidates, seats won by female and minority candidates, and so on.
These firsts, however, were closely intertwined with the contrasts that dogged the election. Consider, for example, how discussions on the pre-poll atmosphere attracted diametrically opposed views from opposite ends of the political spectrum: one calling the environment "the most peaceful" in the history of Bangladesh, while another rejecting it as the worst that was ever seen. Again, after the election, the AL coalition embraced its result wholeheartedly while the opposition Jatiya Oikyafront coalition rejected it as "farcical", calling for a fresh election. Such contrasting views followed nearly all critical situations as Awami League and BNP painted very different pictures of them. And the scarcity of reliable media reports, which could shed light on them, has created a situation in which an authentic appraisal of the situation has become very difficult.
Between these many firsts and many contrasts, however, there are a few points that merit scrutiny as we try to make sense of an immensely complicated electoral scenario.
How fair was the election?
Perhaps the more pertinent question is, how unfair was it? Or, was there anything approaching unfairness? And how participatory was it? Is an election still "participatory" if large numbers of candidates withdraw from the race midway through it? Or, more importantly, does mere (formal) participation of all parties lend credibility to an election? There are many questions but few, if any, answers. When it comes to elections, there seems to be a dangerous trend to use these words—"fair" and "participatory"—interchangeably, as also was done during this election, although both have distinct requirements. In his post-election briefing, the chief election commissioner appeared satisfied as he said that the 2018 election was a "free, fair, and credible" one. "Nothing happened to feel ashamed of during the election," he claimed. Well, some things did happen, including the deaths of at least 18 people and injuries of over 200 in election-related violence. If this still doesn't qualify as "unfair", it must be the most dangerous form of fairness. According to various media reports, there were also allegations of vote rigging, ballot stuffing, intimidation, and many other irregularities in various constituencies across the country. But the EC continues to bury its head in the proverbial sand, ignoring even legitimate calls for investigation. Its refusal to take action or even investigate the crimes has set a dangerous precedent for election management.
A throwback to 2014 election
Before the election, Awami League had stressed that it didn't want a repeat of the controversial 2014 election. The three key highlights of that election were violence, low turnout and opposition boycott. While the 2014 and 2018 elections should be judged on their own merits, one wonders if they were cut from the same cloth. Like 2018, the 2014 election also saw 18 deaths on the Election Day. Of course, voters came out in larger numbers this time and there was no pre-poll boycott either, but there were large-scale opposition withdrawals on the Election Day, which was preceded by a record number of nomination papers, mostly from the opposition camp, being rejected by the EC and over a dozen BNP contenders being disqualified by the High Court. Not to mention, the results of both elections were rejected by the opposition, and fresh elections were sought. Parallels can also be drawn in terms of the massive victory margin for the ruling party and the artificial make-up of parliamentary opposition (Jatiya Party may again sail on two boats by joining the government and keeping the opposition status at the same time). All in all, it appears Awami League will have to bear its 2014 legacy for a few more years.
What's now for BNP?
Never before has BNP looked so vulnerable than it does after its humiliating defeat in the election, winning a measly five seats and looking set to be out of power for a total of 17 years, which is enough for the disintegration of a party. BNP has been progressively dwarfed by its rival, whether in strategic and tactical planning or in building up a political resistance. While it is expected that politicians will play fair, the fact is, fairness works insofar as everyone has an equal regard for it. Playing by a rulebook of "hook, crook and ballot"—as The Economist summed up the strategy behind Awami League's landslide win—is what wins elections these days. BNP paid dearly for its failure to lead, organise and sustain on its own, and for its questionable association with Jamaat-e-Islami. True, with Awami League using the full might of the state to suppress it, it had few choices but the BNP didn't appear as organised or desperate to win as its powerful counterpart, and couldn't judiciously use the support that it still commands at home or abroad.
Back to square one
With the opposition rejecting its results, the 11th parliamentary election has failed to initiate the process of a return to a functional multi-party democracy with a fully functional parliament, which means that we are back to square one—the "post-2014 days" of one party calling all the shots in parliament. On the plus side, the election gave Awami League an unprecedented mandate—a feat unmatched in Bangladesh's politics. This is simultaneously a huge challenge and a unique opportunity to effect change should the party decide to do so. Importantly, the party has pledged electoral reforms in its manifesto. It will be interesting to see how it does that. But bringing electoral reforms is no easy task. It will require a strong political will at the highest level of the party, a consensus across the political spectrum on issues such as the constitution of an EC or the poll-time government—and no small amount of sacrifice on the part of those who directly or indirectly benefit from a dysfunctional electoral system.
Badiuzzaman Bay is a member of the editorial team at The Daily Star. Email: [email protected]
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals.
Awami League leader Jahangir Kabir Nanak did not get his party's ticket to contest the upcoming 11th parliamentary election from Dhaka-13.
In his place, Dhaka City North unit AL General Secretary Sadek Khan was nominated to fight the battle of ballots in one of the key constituencies in Dhaka.
The ruling-AL this morning started distribution of party nomination letters among its candidates.
The party’s General Secretary Obaidul Quader are handing out the nomination papers among the candidates from 10:00am at the party’s headquarters in Dhaka.
Photo taken from Facebook/ Tasnuva Sadek Khan
Who is Nanak?
Nanak is the current joint secretary general of Awami League. He was promoted to the post from organising secretary of the party in 2012.
He was dropped from the then polls-time cabinet as state minister for Local Government and Rural Development (LGRD) Ministry in 2013.
The 64-year old lawyer by profession, Nanak was elected as a lawmaker for Dhaka-13 in 2014.
Body:
In 1978, a book edited by Guy Hermet, Richard Rose and Alain Rouquie was published with an interesting title, Elections without Choice. The book drew some attention soon after its publication, but little did we know that, decades later, the notion of "elections without choice" would become so relevant to the world in general but more so for Bangladesh. As the country is heading towards an exercise that the incumbent is calling an election, it is imperative that we understand what is in the making.
The edited volume of Elections without Choice was an outcome of a research project initiated by the Committee on Political Sociology, composed of the International Political Science Association and the International Sociological Association. The editors quite rightly noted that political scientists deliberately avoid discussing non-competitive elections, because those elections do not meet the fundamental criterion of a liberal democracy. Not only did they underscore the need for understanding non-competitive elections, but also insisted that such elections are important in tracing the trajectory of each country.
The book was published at a time when the world was witnessing a gradual shift towards democracy, one country at a time. The Carnation Revolution in 1974 in Portugal and the death of Francisco Franco in 1975 in Spain started a wave, identified as the "Third Wave of Democracy" by Samuel Huntington in 1991. In the early days of democratisation, promoted by Western countries, it was assumed that an election was a key indicator of the political liberalisation process.
In the 1990s, with the demise of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall, democracy proliferated globally. It was believed that democratic regimes would be the norm and there could be only a few holdouts of autocratic regimes. But within less than a decade, two features became evident. The first one was that elections by themselves do not demonstrate democratisation, because authoritarian regimes also hold elections that are manipulated. The second feature was the emergence of a new kind of regime, with some apparent democratic traits but which are essentially autocratic; they were called hybrid regimes.
The 2014 election was boycotted by the opposition, yet strategies such as packing the Election Commission, or harassing the opposition, or changing electoral rules were used by the incumbent. In the 2018 election, another tool was added—keeping opposition candidates off the ballot—and this was done both by confining leaders and cancelling their nominations on flimsy grounds, making the candidates spend time at the courthouse, which has not been helpful to the candidates.
Subsequently, these regimes, which often hold elections and win at ease, were described as "electoral authoritarianism." These regimes tend to hold regular elections, but these elections are engineered in a fashion that opposition parties have little to no chance to win. In both closed autocracy and hybrid regimes, these exercises are essentially "elections without choice." Consequently, the attention of political scientists and observers shifted to the "quality" of elections.
Evidence mounted in the 2000s that autocrats and rulers of the hybrid regimes manipulate elections. Election manipulation was not a new phenomenon. However, from the 1970s through the 1990s, manipulation of elections was easily detectable: there was blatant rigging, which included capturing polling booths on election day and weapon-wielding party loyalists scaring voters away from polling stations and stuffing the ballot boxes.
But as these hybrid regimes emerged and the despots needed to have some semblance of legitimacy to continue their rule, rigging of an election took a different route. This is the period of regression of democracy, often described as "democratic backsliding," which political scientist Nancy Bermeo defined as "the state-led debilitation or elimination of any of the political institutions that sustain an existing democracy." These political institutions, Bermeo reminded us in an essay, include "all the institutions that enable people to formulate and signify preferences and then have them weighed by their elected representatives."
Two years after Bermeo's essay was published, a seminal book by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt published in 2018, titled How Democracies Die, unequivocally stated that sometimes democracy dies with a bang, with coups, quickly and forcefully. But lately it happens slowly, incrementally; "democratic backsliding today begins at the ballot box." The would-be autocrats rise through the elections, and then they change the rules of the game. Levitsky and Ziblatt use the analogy of a football game. "To consolidate power, the would-be authoritarians must capture the referees, sideline at least some of the other side's star players, and rewrite the rules of the game to lock in their advantage, in effect tilting the playing field against their opponent." When they talk of a referee, in the political context, who are they referring to? "These include the judicial system, law enforcement bodies, and intelligence, tax and regulatory agencies," they write.
Election, in a tilted field, is already rigged in such a manner that it can deliver only one result—a victory for the incumbent. The manipulation of elections, Bermeo told us, is one of the three key features of democratic backsliding. But such manipulation is not like how the classical autocrats used to do it—blatantly. Instead, these are "strategic manipulation," which includes "a range of actions aimed at tilting the electoral playing field in favor of incumbents." Bermeo provides a list of these actions: "keeping opposition candidates off the ballot," "packing electoral commissions," "changing electoral rules to favor incumbents," and "harassing opponents." Usually, these are done "in such a way that the elections themselves do not appear fraudulent" and are intended to fool election observers and the international community.
As for these practices, perhaps nobody else has identified them better than Nic Cheeseman and Brian Klaas. Their book, published in 2018, is titled How to Rig an Election. The name sounds like a manual. In some measures, it is so. Only that they have dissected the manual or the playbook of the autocrats drawing on elections around the world. Cheeseman and Klaas identified the leaders who go for rigging: "Leaders are most likely to try and stay in power when they believe that their presence is essential to maintain political stability; in cases when they are less committed to plural politics; when they have engaged in high-level corruption and/or human rights abuses; when they lack trust in rival leaders and political institutions; when they have been in power for a longer period of time; and when they control geostrategically important states with natural resources, effective security forces, weak institutions and high levels of distrust."
They looked at six strategies that autocrats use to manipulate elections: gerrymandering (shaping electoral constituencies to the incumbent's benefit), vote buying, repression of opposition, hacking the election, stuffing the ballot box, and playing the international community. Interestingly, while ballot box stuffing is the most effective strategy, considering the risk of exposure, often autocrats use other strategies ahead of the election to ensure a victory. This is how elections are held by autocratic regimes.
Since the 2014 election, none of these strategies have been in short supply in Bangladesh. That election was boycotted by the opposition, yet strategies such as packing the Election Commission, or harassing the opposition, or changing electoral rules were used by the incumbent. In the 2018 election, another tool was added—keeping opposition candidates off the ballot—and this was done both by confining leaders and cancelling their nominations on flimsy grounds, making the candidates spend time at the courthouse, which has not been helpful to the candidates.
These have delivered victory, not only a hollow one but something more than that, if we borrow from Cheeseman and Klass: "so one sided as to beggar belief, exposing the ruling party to ridicule." The ruling Awami League has not, by any means, abandoned its 2014 and 2018 strategies, but instead has become further audacious. The violent crackdown on opposition since October 28, arrests of BNP leaders, convictions of BNP leaders and activists at lightning speed, and shutting down party offices are testimonies to the continuation of these strategies. They also show how referees have been captured.
But in search of a way to avoid the ridiculous situations of winning 153 seats unopposed in 2014 or winning 96 percent of seats with allies in 2018, and additionally to "play the international community," it has invented a new way called fielding "dummy candidates." The so-called 'dummies" are candidates who belong to the ruling party but are contesting the election as "independents" with the approval of the party. Besides, the smaller parties, "king's parties," and individuals who have been cajoled or coerced into participating in the election, thanks to state apparatuses, would like to run under the symbol of the ruling AL.
Ironically, these have not saved the party from being a subject of ridicule, but made it more embarrassing for it long before a single vote has been cast. Importantly, all these have laid bare that the ruling AL is moving towards an "election without choice."
Ali Riazis distinguished professor of political science at Illinois State University in the US, non-resident senior fellow of the Atlantic Council, and president of the American Institute of Bangladesh Studies (AIBS). His forthcoming book is titled 'Pathways of Autocratization: The tumultuous journey of Bangladeshi politics.'
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.