Bangladesh has had two elec- tions since the system of a non-partisan caretaker gov- ernment overseeing elections was abolished. One was boycotted by most of the parties except the allies of the ruling Awami League, and the other was participated in by all the registered and unregistered parties. In reality, neither could be termed par- ticipatory, as voters were practically disenfranchised on both occasions. As we approach the third consecutive election to be held under the AL administration – which has so far been a restaging of 2014, due to the boycott by opposition parties – one question that worries everyone is: how will the world react?
It is clear why Awami League is so desperate to make 7 January 2024 look like a genuine competition, with- out any real competitors. Allowing aspirants of ruling party tickets to run as independents against ruling party nominees has already resulted in numerous bloody, internecine con- flicts. Discontent among the ruling party’s allies, too, makes the future of its Grand Alliance shaky. But appar- ently, none of these potential risks matter anymore.
Costly decisions by the party and the alliance to make elections appear competitive is one thing, but coercing voters in order to increase their pres- ence at the polling booths is another. Disturbing reports of vulnerable peo- ple, who rely on social security bene- fits, being warned that staying home on election day would result in their allowances being cut off are quite shocking.
One may ignore such threats if they’re coming from AL’s union-level leaders (though they play a crucial role in preparing beneficiaries’ list and verifying them), but hearing this threat from a member of the ruling party’s advisory council and a party candidate indicates that it’s part of party policy. There has been no official statement so far from AL leadership distancing itself from the statement made by former water resources min- ister Ramesh Chandra Sen.
Nobody is denying the fact that the Awami League government has expanded the social security net quite significantly over the last 15 years. According to the official statistics of the finance ministry, the number of beneficiaries in the 2022-23 fiscal year stood at 128.5 lakh. But even more intriguing is the fact that coercing women is much easier than men, as the government pays primary and secondary students’ stipends to their mothers, and their number is even higher than that of beneficiaries of social security allowances.
Though reports of political nepo- tism and corruption by party func- tionaries at the grassroots level are not uncommon, these state benefits are citizens’ rightful entitlement and not subject to their political beliefs or affil- iations. But using these social security programmes as a tool to force people to go to the voting centres is unprece- dented, unethical, and deplorable. If the government wanted to make vot- ing mandatory as part of its commit- ment to democracy and to strengthen democratic institutions, it could have legislated necessary laws. But this is not the path that it has taken, despite its overwhelming majority in parlia- ment during the past three terms.
In another development, police have now stepped in for the mission to increase voter presence by asking ward councillors of Dhaka’s city cor- porations to encourage residents of their respective areas to go to polling centres. One may ask, has it ever been a norm for the police to be entrusted by the Election Commission, or by any other authority, to put so much effort into increasing voter participation?
Clearly, this is an instance of par- tisan behaviour by a state institution that is required to be neutral under the law. Such a partisan role to count- er the opposition’s boycott campaign will in fact unnerve voters even more. And all these coercive measures are being taken for an event where voters in most constituencies will have no choice but to elect someone from Awami League, irrespective of whichever symbol they vote for.
Can this restaging of the 2014 election (with better camouflage) fool the world? A lot has been discussed and speculated about the US, espe- cially due to its threat of a visa ban. But what about the Europeans? Let’s revisit the post-2014 election situa- tion. On January 16 of that year, 11 days after the one-sided election took place, the European Parliament in a resolution, among other things, said that it “sincerely regrets that the par- liament and political parties did not manage to agree on an inclusive mechanism for elections, and urgent- ly calls on the government and oppo- sition to put the best interests of Bangladesh first, and to find a com- promise which would give a chance to the Bangladeshi people to express their democratic will in a representa- tive and credible way; considers that all options should be considered, including an early election if all legiti- mate political parties are willing to stand and offer voters a choice.”
Given the European Parliament’s latest resolution on Bangladesh (adopted on 14 September 2023) call- ing on the government “to guarantee the conditions for free, fair and par- ticipatory elections in 2024,” who will bet on an endorsement of this govern- ment’s re-election? Could the oppo- sition parties’ participation in the 2018 election have restored the Euro- pean MPs’ confidence in our ability to hold a credible election? Unfortunate- ly, the European Commission’s then foreign policy chief Vice-President Federica Mogherini’s statement in parliament was a depressing one. Responding to a question on 14 June 2019, she said, “The EU’s cooperation with Bangladesh emphasises democ- racy, human rights, development, trade relations, and labour rights. The EU closely monitors the political situ- ation in Bangladesh, including the last parliamentary elections. Unfortu- nately, violence marred the election day, and significant obstacles to a level playing field remained in place throughout the process. The EU has been pressing national authorities in Bangladesh to ensure a proper exami- nation of alleged irregularities.”
Back then, calls to investigate election irregularities also came from the United Kingdom, the United States, and from a few other coun- tries. But none of these calls were heeded. Understandably, strong sup- port from two Asian neighbours, India and China, bolstered Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina so much that she was able to avert pressures from the West and others. But can the same happen for a third time? It all depends on whether Western democ- racies are willing to conduct business as usual despite their concerns being ignored.
The Daily Star/ANN.