We appreciate what appears to be the first sign of flexibility in the administration about forming a poll-time government ahead of the national election. The prime minister on Monday hinted that a poll-time government with parties having representation in parliament could be formed. By the same logic, however, she rejected the possibility of the BNP, whose MPs had resigned from parliament last December, being a part of it. She also ruled out any dialogue with BNP as it leads a nationwide anti-government movement.

Read more

Without support from bureaucracy, EC can’t hold fair elections

There are a number of takeaways from the PM's statement. First of all, the apparent willingness to bring opposition elements in the government marks a departure from the bellicose posturing that we have come to expect from ruling-party politicians. But that hardly rises to the level expected in the present environment of distrust, with BNP edged out of the process on a technicality. Also, the PM's tone, alluding to "our generosity" for forming such a government, leaves doubt about how impactful it might be. One thing that we don't want to see is token representation without real power.

Read more

Column by Mahfuz Anam: Who runs the country?

Secondly, BNP remains the biggest opposition party regardless of its representation or lack thereof in parliament. So, how judicious is it to exclude it from a potential poll-time government or any dialogue on said government and the election in general? Dialogue at the top level may not be on the cards right now, but mid-ranked leaders from both parties can, and should, start the process. Dialogue is essential for any solution to the current political impasse.

Read more

Is the EC fighting an unwinnable war?

Thirdly, formation of a poll-time government is but a means to an end, which is to ensure that those in charge have the trust of all political elements and the general public so that they can deliver a fair and credible election. So how should that government be formed? The PM offers a way, but it cannot be the only way. Any poll-time government without the representation of main political elements will not solve the pressing issues we face. Also, how will it perform? Will it be unidimensional where everything is decided from the top, as it is now? These things must be considered going forward.

As the chief election commissioner repeated on Monday, the commission alone cannot hold a fair election without the help of the government. Without taking away from the responsibility of the EC, we think that some sort of a credible power structure in the driving seat is a crucial precondition for any fair election.

We are deeply saddened by the passing of former Election Commissioner Mahbub Talukdar (80). With his death, we have lost one of the most rebellious voices in the history of electoral politics in Bangladesh. A freedom fighter who taught Bangla at Chattogram University before the war, Talukdar joined civil service in 1971, and since then, served in various capacities till his retirement. Perhaps his most remarkable time as a bureaucrat was when he was at the Election Commission (2017-2022), where he emerged as a lone crusader against the ills of our electoral system. He never hesitated to speak up or criticise the commission's own decisions that he believed went against the interests of citizens.

Read more

The voice for inclusive polls falls silent

Mahbub Talukdar will thus be remembered as a fierce advocate for fair and inclusive elections, the importance of ensuring a level playing field for all parties and candidates, and of course, people's right to vote. As a commissioner, he set inspiring examples of righteousness and boldness, sometimes by walking out of EC meetings or issuing notes of dissent, all aimed at making the country's electoral system acceptable to the people. He believed it was the EC's sacred responsibility to organise free and fair elections, saying: "I will fight for fair elections till the end of my tenure." This he did, as faithfully and honestly as possible. One particular aspect of his fight was his position against the use of EVMs without the consent of all parties – something that the present commission can learn from.

He believed it was the EC's sacred responsibility to organise free and fair elections, saying: "I will fight for fair elections till the end of my tenure."

We remember how, in a bid to make city corporation polls fair, he protested against MPs' engagement in electioneering during such polls. He untiringly protested against voter suppression and other electoral irregularities, including ballot-stuffing the night before the controversial 2018 national election, which he said "gave us nothing but the shame of failure." At the same time, he spoke for reforms in the overall electoral system to avoid such interventions. His integrity, honesty and patriotism were unparalleled.

Mahbub Talukdar was also a multi-talented personality. A man with a golden pen, he was a well-known poet, a short story writer and a novelist. He had 44 books to his credit, mainly on poetry and fiction. He received the prestigious Bangla Academy Literary Award for his contribution to children's literature. A family man, he believed in the traditional culture of the land.

But it is his legacy as a revolutionary election commissioner that we cherish the most today. Will we have another one like him, who will defend the interests of citizens with such courage?

Now that the Cumilla City Corporation (CCC) election is over and everything there was to see and hear has been seen and heard, we need to address the elephant in the room. No, it's not the dramatic turnabout that saw the ruling Awami League's candidate win by a razor-thin margin of 343 votes. Or his rival's rejection of the result and subsequent explanations offered by election officials. Or the chaos into which the meeting of rivals descended over the announcement of the result. Or the slow voting caused by EVMs. These problems notwithstanding, the election served up some good moments too, notable among them the absence of violence.

But election memories are notoriously fickle. Recency bias can get the better of us all, and all these moments from one election may soon be forgotten as more elections are held and all eventually shoehorned into mere statistics. The only thing that will probably last, at least in the public mind, is the impression we're left with ahead of the final test in December 2023. Will we feel confident going into the general election? Will we feel concerned? Or will we feel scared?

It is in this context that we have to address the elephant in the room. No, it's not the CCC election but the Election Commission itself, or more specifically, its shocking retreat in the face of opposition from a ruling lawmaker who defied its order to leave the city after violating the "code of conduct". His subsequent tutorial on how the EC should conduct its business only solidified any sense of helplessness the EC may have had, which it seemed to project in two phases: First by expressing its inability to make him leave, and then, on Monday, by further softening its tone through a U-turn on earlier claims of breach of code.

This remarkable turn of events is significant on several levels. First, when the directive was issued, many thought it would be the EC's crowning moment, staking its claim to the full range of its power as given by the constitution. In any turf war, you don't establish your superiority by scaring the odd mastan off but by making a statement move against the biggest/baddest of them. Election, in our part of the world, is but a turf war fought on the electoral space. Over the years, absent a strong opposition, the battle has been fought, silently and rather one-sidedly, between the ruling party and the EC – the real power vs the "perceived" real power, the partisan side vs the people's side. And the last two commissions, frankly, lost their fight as much as their dignity because they didn't have the courage to stand tall in front of it.

The EC directive thus signalled a shift in attitude, a willingness to finally fight back. The picture that emerged from this was of a team that was not afraid to be tough and to do whatever necessary to uphold the sanctity of their office. Fond parallels were drawn with an incident during the first election in Cumilla in 2012, when a minister was forced to leave the city after the then EC threatened to postpone the election if he didn't comply within an hour. If that commission could do it, we told ourselves, this one can too. After all, as experts say, sections 31 and 32 of the code of conduct empower it to mete out penalties for any violations, including the imposition of fines, jail sentence and even cancellation of the candidature of any candidate. Yes, it can even postpone an election too.

But in the end, the EC's big moment turned into a big bag of nothing. Worse, it ended up being a humbling experience for it as it was forced to retract its allegations. The EC even appeared to be apologetic for the inconvenience caused to the lawmaker. You don't see this level of effort or concession when the pride of an opposition leader is hurt. This, in the coming days, will be used as an example of defeat in the EC's first real negotiation with power, and a reference point for any such defeat from here on. And the memory of how powerless it made citizens feel will stay with them.

This is the kind of events that set narratives, or rather, override them. If the EC wanted to establish a narrative that it can deliver a "peaceful, fair and transparent" election – to quote the CEC – it has been overshadowed by the more powerful image of its surrender when faced with real power. When the two images are put side by side, what we have is cause at once for short-term relief and long-term horror.

Relief, because of the experience of an election without violence, if not without hassles. Horror, because of its dire implications for the future of the Election Commission and the electoral system in general.

When the present commission was installed in late February, there was no doubt in anyone's mind about what should be expected of it: to restore public confidence after two highly controversial general elections that tainted Bangladesh's image globally and caused indescribable suffering. The EC, thus, has a very clear role to play: Undo the damage. Damage done to the electoral system. Damage to the voters' trust. Damage to how other stakeholders, including the administration and political parties, approach elections. And damage to the idea of EC itself.

No one said it would be an easy task. But having clarity of purpose can be a source of comfort. And we were led to believe that it can be a source of strength too. All the newly appointed commissioners including the CEC spoke in unison as they vowed to bring opposition parties back to the campaign trail and citizens back to the voting booths, with their trust restored. Perhaps the EC should remember those vows now. It should understand that undertaking real change requires courage. It requires doing away with the old, bureaucratic ways of doing things. It requires challenging the status quo.

Badiuzzaman Bay is an assistant editor at The Daily Star.