With the national election still two weeks away, many national and international observers have already termed it as a farce or "staged election", and it is easy to see why. One of the key features of any election is the ability of voters to select the winner. If voters are not presented with any real options to choose from, then arguably the most important purpose of an election is defeated. That is why we saw the ruling party scrambling to field dummy candidates or bargaining with the Jatiya Party to make up for the absence of the BNP and other like-minded parties, thus giving the election some sort of legitimacy.

Let us not forget that the idea of fielding dummy candidates this time—we have, of course, heard about it in previous elections also—came from the very top of the Awami League. So, if the ruling party itself is offering voters the option to choose from either a candidate of the Awami League or a dummy, what real options do voters have? And what message are they to receive from the ones conducting this election—namely, the Election Commission—who, knowing this, is still going ahead with the election? Are people to believe that the EC is conducting it in the interest of voters? Of course not.

Read more

Why do other parties need AL’s concessions to win election?

The EC asking the home ministry to take steps to prevent political rallies and processions of all kinds, except for electoral campaigns, from December 18 till polling day, also makes it complicit in suppressing protests against what a number of opposition parties see as being a farcical election. Interestingly, earlier on that same day, the Awami League's general secretary urged the commission and law enforcement agencies to take a strong stance against forces that the ruling party saw were against the elections—mainly the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Such a step to stop political rallies and programmes, it can be argued, is unconstitutional, as it denies political parties in the opposition camp the right to assembly, the right to protest, the right to movement and the right to free expression.

As concerning as the use of such a tactic may be, it hasn't been the only one used to set up what seems to be a staged and one-sided election. Last month, The Guardian reported how Bangladesh saw "full prisons and false charges" due to the crackdown on the opposition. Following such "a ruthless crackdown on the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party" in the run-up to the elections, it noted how few "believe the election will be free, fair or remotely democratic." This strategy, according to The New York Times, is leading to "Bangladesh's multiparty democracy…being methodically strangled in crowded courtrooms."

The expediated trials leading to the convictions of hundreds of opposition leaders and activists further validate such apprehensions. For example, on December 11, at least 42 BNP members and those of its infamous allies—Jamaat-e-Islami—were convicted in four cases. Between August-December, 961 opposition leaders and activists were reportedly sentenced to imprisonment in 62 cases in Dhaka. What makes these especially controversial is that convictions were apparently made without considering any independent witnesses or only with police deposition, and defence lawyers further alleged that less than half of the prosecution witnesses were heard. Furthermore, it must be noted that such speedy disposal of cases is unusual in a country where justice delivery has become particularly slow. This fact, and our previous history of witnessing politically motivated cases right before elections, indicate that opposition leaders are again being targeted and kept out of the electoral fray.

Read more

Of the AL, for the AL, and by the AL

In that regard, the recent comments made by Awami League presidium member and agriculture minister Abdur Razzaque, that jailed BNP men were offered freedom if the party agreed to contest the polls, is telling. Although AL later tried to play it down and its general secretary said it was Razzaque's personal opinion, it lends further credence to the public perception that all these arrests and convictions are being made in trumped up cases for political reasons. Additionally, it raises two very important questions: 1) If we are currently in a situation where the ruling party can decide to arrest and release thousands of opposition leaders and activists, is it really conducive for a free and fair election? And 2) what has happened to the independence of the legal system?

Such an admission and the underlying state of affairs—for example, since 2009, 1,37,569 cases have been filed against 49,80,826 BNP leaders and activists—show that the Awami League is bent on ensuring its grip over power by using the full might of the state machinery. What is missing in all of this is the role of the citizens, who have all but lost their right to vote. As a result, government officials across the board are no longer accountable to the people and so, the people no longer have any say in how the state is being run, nor how the elections should be conducted. So, even though it's been the opposition that has mainly been on the receiving end of the government's high-handedness and the ruling party's vitriol, ultimately, it will be the general people who are likely to be the biggest losers of the elections.

Eresh Omar Jamal is a journalist at The Daily Star. His X handle is @EreshOmarJamal

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 lists of dengue infections and deaths are only getting longer, and nobody can tell if, or when, the situation will get better. The prices of daily essentials continue to skyrocket, with the price of eggs, the go-to protein for the poor, now equal to that of a kilogram of broiler chicken. Meanwhile, more than 50 people were killed in the floods in Chattogram and the Chittagong Hill Tracts area in recent weeks.

In all of this, it is the common people (or in the context of the upcoming national election, the voters) who are the worst sufferers. But the politicians seem to be blissfully oblivious to the plight of their electorate. There is no denying that the country is headed towards its next parliamentary election with the two major political parties harbouring opposite stances regarding the election itself. Of course, a free, fair, and inclusive election is necessary for a better society and stronger democracy. But when people are suffering the most, when they are dying because of poor governance, how can the political parties focus on only the physical exercise of the election and how it will play out in about four months? Shouldn't their focus be on how best to serve the people now? Shouldn't they be concerned about the welfare of the poorest of society? Shouldn't our politicians be working to win the hearts and minds of the people, instead of engaging in political power play with their archrivals?

Read more

Living like the poor, paying like the rich

Ideally, and historically, people get into politics for the welfare of their people. But it appears from recent political machinations that the people have been conveniently forgotten or even sidelined in the game of politics. When one political party says that the country's people are with it, and the other party claims that it represents the people, I can't help but wonder who it is that is actually representing me, or has my interests at heart.

Bangladeshi politics is going through a critical phase. The fact is that politicians have lost control over politics in general, which appears to have been hijacked by corporate interests – given the representation of businessmen and former bureaucrats in the parliament. Currently, around 62 percent of lawmakers are from the business sector. The government's dependency on the administration has increased. And none but the politicians have brought this upon themselves, in their pursuit of shortcuts and expediency. When career politicians become weak, so does politics. And when the people are sidelined, politics – so far as it is concerned with maintaining democracy – becomes more fragile.

Read more

Is the Awami League worried?

It is in this context that the exhortations of the diplomatic corps in Dhaka – India, China, the US, and the EU – about the supremacy of the people and how they hope that the people's wishes will be reflected in the outcome of the election, are both ironic and intriguing.

The two previous elections changed the nature of Bangladeshi people's participation in national politics. The 2014 election, which BNP had boycotted and which saw 153 lawmakers being elected uncontested, remains a rare example of a lopsided election. In the 2018 election, many people were denied the right to cast their votes, and allegations emerged of ballot-stuffing on the eve of elections, so much so that it was even mentioned by Awami League's alliance members. When politicians found that they could get elected even without votes, voters ceased to become a factor to consider when trying to win elections. In the past, candidates did have to woo voters, and win their hearts and minds to get their votes. But now, when a mere nomination all but guarantees victory for a candidate, the exercise of putting in effort to win voters has become all but cosmetic.

Read more

Did BNP make the wrong call?

On the other hand, while the opposition can do little so far as actual measures are concerned – whether that relates to dengue or prices – it is their responsibility to hold the government accountable. It falls on the opposition to keep these issues alive so that the government cannot ignore them. One way to do that is in parliament, which has unfortunately lost its purpose since the official opposition is, by and large, an informal extension of the ruling party alliance. Meanwhile, the main opposition camp on the streets, BNP, is too obsessed with its one-point demand for a resignation of the ruling government than with the plight of the voters.

So now, whenever I hear calls for this or that "in the name of the people," and when political parties launch campaigns for the supposed sake of the people, it seems to me that those politicians are merely cementing their political careers using the name of the people. Is anyone actually thinking about the families of those 50 people who died in the floods? Or about the children who are going to bed hungry in Bangladesh even now? That one has to pose such questions in a column is perhaps an even bigger tragedy.

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

Having been a journalist since 1972 and an editor-publisher since 1993, it saddens me deeply to see some editors, instead of embellishing, strengthening, and bringing more honour and dignity to their position, are doing the exact opposite: bringing shame, disrepute, and indignity by acting as public relations officers (PROs) of their owners.

Editorship is, no doubt, a job. However, far more importantly, it is a position of public trust. It is on that trust that the credibility of a particular media outlet depends, which, at the end of the day, determines its success. An editor must adhere to the fundamental ethics of journalism: truth, objectivity, honesty, and a complete absence of bias. Every story must be fact-based, verified by multiple sources, and the person or the institution being written about be given a chance to respond. Yes, proprietors may, and can and sometimes do, have an agenda of their own, but it is the editor's duty to protect his/her institution from gross misuse.

Read more

Column by Mahfuz Anam: Only journalists can protect journalism

A prerequisite of being an editor—qualities far more important than his/her ability to write, edit, direct, lead, brief reporters, have a nose for stories, etc—is to have sufficient self-respect, personal courage, and dignity to never to allow the media under his control to be used to spread lies and hatred, defame, and falsely malign. When a proprietor forces an editor to publish something, the latter must ensure two things: one, that it is fact-based; and, two, that the other side is given a chance to respond. If all his/her efforts fail, he/she should resign and go public to show how he/she tried to save journalism from being exploited. That is how the editorial institution is built and the public respect for it grows.

It is not uncommon for proprietors and editors to have political leanings. But that should be in the opinion section and should never cloud reporting, which should only be fact-based and adhere to the fundamental ethics of journalism.

A proprietor can own anything permitted by law. But there is a difference between owning a shoe factory and a pharmaceutical company. As the owner of the former, he/she can experiment with practically anything: design, colour, material, shape, etc. But in the case of the latter, the owner must totally and completely submit to the professional management and allow complete freedom to operate the factory according to all scientific specifications. Can an owner tell a doctor how to treat a patient or which medicine to prescribe for which malady? Similarly, the media must be run by professional journalists. An owner must allow total independence of the professionals, led by the editor, to run a media establishment in an unbiased and fact-based manner.

Read more

A new reality for free media

The purpose of this column is to raise the issue of owner-driven journalism versus professional journalism, a PRO-editorship versus professional editorship.

Let us remember with pride that only two professions are given protection in any democratic country's constitution: the judiciary and mass media. Why? Because experience has shown that an independent judiciary acts as a pillar of democracy, and free media serves the essential purpose of assuring accountability and transparency of the governance process.

What I write below—without mentioning the names of either the newspapers or their editors—is not aimed at shaming journalists or fellow editors, but at raising the issue of how we are destroying the editorial institution and thereby bringing disrepute and ignominy to our highly esteemed profession.

Read more

In the era of social media, legacy media is indispensable

On February 23, three newspapers—two Bangla and one English—published the same report, with the same headline, "Prothom Alo, Daily Star: The 'masterminds' behind plot to eliminate Begum Zia from politics," referring to the events that occurred in 2007—18 years ago. What sort of journalism is it when the same text—word for word—is published in multiple newspapers, each claiming it to be written by their own "special correspondent"? What does it say about the "editor's" authority in deciding on content? Where does such content originate from, what is the process of its verification, and what leads editors to carry such content without any explanation to its readers? This is when editors relinquish their authority and become PROs of their media owners.

The story line is: Prothom Alo and The Daily Star masterminded the ouster of Khaleda Zia from politics. The reports begin like this, "In 2007, a blueprint was devised to destroy democracy in Bangladesh and depoliticise the country. One of the key architects of the blueprint was the Prothom Alo and The Daily Star group. The two newspapers not only played (a) key role in formulating the plan but also engaged in relentless smear campaigns to eliminate BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia from politics."

Read more

The indiscriminate arrests and murder charges

The origin of the story is a press conference held by Abdul Mannan Bhuiyan, the then secretary general of BNP, which was covered by all newspapers and TV stations at the time. We were able to gather the following few: "Khaleda Zia baad" by Ittefaq; "Khaleda Zia out" by Sangbad; "BNP's reform initiative keeping Khaleda Zia out" (translated) by Inquilab; "Proposal to reduce the power of BNP chairperson" (translated) by Naya Diganta; "BNP reform plan shows door to Khaleda" by The Bangladesh Observer; and "BNP's reform proposals" (translated) by Janakantha. The reports of the three newspapers singled us out and did not mention that all others newspapers published the same story. We had similar heading and content as the others.

Read more

The media's role in Bangladesh 2.0

What is striking is that this very line of propaganda was followed by the fallen regime, which is now being repeated by these three papers. The Daily Star and Prothom Alo—because we spoke truth to power—were accused by Sheikh Hasina and Awami League ministers and party leaders that we were behind the 1/11 army-backed caretaker government—again without submitting an iota of proof. For 15 years, Hasina and her party held unquestioned power. They must have investigated us as thoroughly as can be imagined. They found no proof. That is why, in spite of lodging 84 cases against this writer—16 of which were for sedition—they did not follow through.

On what basis, using what proof did the three newspapers' journalists write this common copy, and why did three separate editors allow this story to be printed? What fact-checking did they do? What sort of authentic—as against biased—investigation did they undertake? And how could the editors violate the most basic norm of journalism, and not give the subjects of the report any chance to respond?

Among many reforms that Bangladeshi newspapers must undertake—and we are looking forward to the report of the Media Reform Commission—an important one is to move away from "owner-driven journalism" to "editor-driven journalism."

Read more

Proper reforms will strengthen the media

The three newspapers in question have published false, twisted, distorted reports against us many times before, similarly without evidence. On April 21, 2011, the Bangladesh Press Council passed a stern judgement against one of the said newspapers on its reporting against Matiur Rahman, editor of Prothom Alo, saying that "… reporting constituted yellow journalism which is a violation of newspaper ethics." A similar judgement was passed against the other Bangla newspaper on May 12, 2011 on another report against the Prothom Alo editor, saying "… the report was false, fictitious and was an example of yellow journalism." On both occasions, the editors and publisher of those newspapers were reprimanded. Similar condemnatory judgements was passed by the press council and delivered against all three newspapers on May 22-24, 2013, who were accused of publishing false, fictitious, derogatory, and unsubstantiated news against Prothom Alo and its editor.

Recently, I came across a term in Bangla—"shikari sangbadikota" ("target journalism"), meaning journalism designed to target an individual, institution, personality, editor, or newspaper without proof. The purpose is to denigrate, malign or discredit someone. Just as one hires an assassin to kill someone, one hires "shikari sangbadik" to assassinate the character of a person of high repute or a newspaper of high standing.

Read more

Freedom of the press must be protected

I appealed to journalists in a piece I wrote on April 7, 2023, titled "Only journalists can protect journalism." This was in response to a vicious, Goebbels-style campaign, conducted by a private TV station against Prothom Alo about a photo of a child published with a quote from a day labourer as a photo card. The TV station accused Prothom Alo of "conspiring to destabilise our independence and make our Liberation War questionable." The Prothom Alo editor was sued under the infamous Digital Security Act (DSA) and his Savar correspondent was picked up, gangster-style, without a warrant. Sadly, other than the Dhaka Reporters Unity (DRU), no other journalists' body or media organisation said a word.

Today, I appeal again to all journalists, and especially to fellow editors, to move away from all our past prejudice, hatred, biases, and tendency to make fatal compromises and, alongside rebuilding Bangladesh in the post-July-August 2024 era, also rebuild journalism with renewed pledge to our journalistic ethos and commitment to democracy, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and public service.

Editors, please don't sacrifice your dignity and become PROs of the proprietors.

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.

The former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia on Tuesday embarked on a long-anticipated journey abroad for medical treatment. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) chairperson—whose imprisonment, health deterioration, and subsequent treatment had become a politically charged issue for years during the Awami League regime—has gained tremendous sympathy for the hardship she has endured. As a result, her journey to London, which reunited her with her eldest son Tarique Rahman after seven long years, has become something of a watershed moment in Bangladesh's recent political history.

The BNP, who had been politically stifled by the Awami League, understandably looked to capitalise on this moment. However, the way BNP activists descended upon much of North Dhaka on Tuesday night to bid their chairperson farewell, choking Dhaka's most vital artery—the Airport Road—with sheer numbers is an approach that lacked creativity and freshness. It stank of an all too familiar tendency of political parties in our country to construct cults of personality, something much of Bangladesh has violently rejected in the recent past and has been trying desperately to move past.

For an outside observer, it must be baffling that the BNP, having witnessed what the actions of the last 15 years did to the Awami League in three short weeks this summer, never even considered the fact that if they didn't play fast and loose with people's precious time like Sheikh Hasina used to, it would set a nice contrast in the minds of voters and the young generation.

For the BNP, this last Tuesday was an opportunity. If they could only get Khaleda Zia on the plane without majorly disrupting life in the world's densest city, have some strategically placed public relations agents on popular media discuss this refreshing approach and focus on the former two-time prime minister's steadfast commitment to not compromise with an undemocratic foe and the culmination of a years-long familial separation, the BNP may well have been cruising on the journey to wiping the memories of the horrendous five-year period when the BNP was last in power.

In truth, every day since August 5, 2024, has been a day of opportunity the BNP has missed. The Awami League's ouster, the mountain of legal troubles facing Awami League politicians, and the general rejection of Awami League influence across all facets of life in the country have certainly been a victory for the BNP. Yet, to solidify this victory, the presumptive prime political force in Bangladesh has to distance themselves from the one that has just been booted.

Read more

The need for transparency in political financing

The BNP faithful might say that this is an unnecessary exercise. The BNP has forever been the furthest possible thing from the Awami League, due to the decades-long animosity between the rivals. Yet, in the minds of those who remember 2001-2006 and those who don't remember that time but have been told stories of corruption, misrule, and the perennial threat of bombings that haunted those days, BNP is part of the same political culture that birthed the authoritarian juggernaut that the Awami League became.

In fact, history supports this perception. The BNP and the Awami League were the two major stakeholders of the post-Ershad democratic restructuring, and they had subsequently split the honours in the four elections since, whose credibility has been largely accepted. While the Awami League has emerged victorious—by a long margin at that—in the cursed contest of inflicting misery on the people of Bangladesh, the BNP too has been a participant.

There is little doubt that the BNP is poised to benefit greatly from the aftermath of August 5, 2024, but if the BNP wants to be seen by history in a light that is a shade separate from that which cloaks the Awami League, they must shake things up.

The political culture that seeks to elevate one politician, or a political family, to a position any greater than a regular citizen of the country is a political culture that must end. It was refreshing to hear that some in the BNP leadership had called for more sense on Tuesday night, but that call went unheard. For millions in Dhaka, it was like being haunted by a nightmare, when yet again, a politician's flight abroad took priority over the journey of every ambulance, emergency vehicle, public bus, or a simple homebound employee after a long day.

All BNP achieved on Tuesday night was reassuring themselves that they too could call on the numbers that the Awami League boasted in its heyday. But people already know that the BNP is the biggest party in the country now. What people don't know is if the BNP has the capacity to show the bare minimum respect to its potential constituents, which AL never showed in all its years of power.

This lack of respect, this disregard for public welfare over years and years, is what makes a popular, elected government fester into one that needs to turn its guns on the public to stay in power.

The BNP, on Tuesday night, made a clear show of its lack of respect for the people whose support they hope will carry them into power. In the next election, the support of the blindly faithful may just carry the party over the line into the parliament (or the presidency, depending on constitutional reforms), but if their attitude towards the public does not change, they too run the risk of eventually festering into some form of the disease that kills before it's violently cured.

Azmin Azran is digital features coordinator 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.