Bangladesh now has a new government, determined through an election held on January 7 that was described as "controversial" in well-known international press. As the results of the voting came out, several international media outlets likened Bangladesh to a budding one-party state, as more than 95 percent of the winners for the 298 seats are effectively from the ruling Awami League. Not to mention, the rest of the less than five percent—who are from Jatiyo Party and may pose in the new parliament as the opposition—was also "chosen" by Awami League as both parties negotiated not to confront each other in some seats.

When it became obvious in the months leading up to the polls that the major opposition political parties, including BNP, would not participate in the election without a non-partisan administration, all leading international bodies like the UN, the EU, and Western governments distanced themselves from sending full-fledged observer missions to the Bangladesh election. Such decisions are clear indicators that those major global bodies and democracies were convinced about the absence of the intention of authorities to hold a fully participatory election.

However, countries like Russia, China, India, and Japan sent their official teams of observers to monitor the polls. There were also some individuals from the US, the UK, Canada, Germany, Portugal, Australia, Malaysia, Nepal, and some other countries who came to Bangladesh as "independent" observers, according to Election Commission documents.

Read more

A review of the 2024 electoral drama

Statements by the UN Human Rights Commission and some democratic governments following the announcement of the election results reflected their previous concerns over the credibility and legitimacy of a voting of this sort. UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk warned that "the future of all Bangladeshis is at stake." The US Department of States spokesperson, Matthew Miller, said that they "share the view with other observers that these elections were not free or fair." A spokesperson of the UK government's Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office said on the day after the election, "Democratic elections depend on credible, open, and fair competition. Respect for human rights, rule of law, and due process are essential elements of the democratic process. These standards were not consistently met during the election period."

However, echoing the monitors from nations like Russia and China, who declared the election as "fair, open and transparent," the so-called independent observers from some Western countries also found it "fair and transparent."

The overall coverage from Bangladeshi (and also Indian) media—which enjoys increasingly curtailed freedom—focused more on the positive reactions of the Western individual observers and portrayed them as "independent." The wording in some pro-government media reports even made those foreign individuals seem like the "official observers" of their respective countries. That prompted the Canadian High Commission in Dhaka to take to X (formerly Twitter) to clarify that the country had not deployed any observers to monitor Bangladesh's January 7 election. "Any individual who identifies as a Canadian observer is acting independently. Their views have not been endorsed by the Government of Canada," the High Commission said.

One of these individuals, Alexander B Gray from the United States, was quoted by local media as saying at a group press conference on January 8, "None of us have personally observed anything other than a fair, transparent, and accountable election in line with democratic norms, international standards, and Bangladesh's local circumstances." This is a starkly different observation from his country's official statement.

Read more

What will happen to multi-party democracy in Bangladesh?

Finding this interesting, I delved deeper into exploring who these "independent" observers are. After all, we do have records of ruling party men hiring fake election observers during the 2018 general election, as reported by Reuters.

Before digging through the online records of the observers, we need to know more about the term "fake observer." According to the European Platform for Democratic Elections (EPDE), an EU-funded project that promotes citizen election observation across Europe, "Fake observation is politically biased international election observation. It is a form of political activity performed by international actors and aimed at advancing interests of politicians and political forces by imitating credible election monitoring during electoral processes."

The Declaration of Global Principles for Nonpartisan Election Observation and Monitoring by Citizen Organizations says: non-partisan observers are required to have credible and transparent methodologies for observing election processes. This seemingly is not the case for the "independent" observers of January 7. A release provided to reporters at a press meet in Dhaka by a group of nine observers led by Alexander Barton Gray, the CEO of the Oklahoma-based lobbying firm American Global Strategies (AGS), did not specify the methodology they'd followed to monitor the election before giving a sweeping verdict of fairness in the process.

Accepting funding, including for travel and/or accommodation, from any party involved in the electoral process is also an indicator of non-partisan observation. Media reports say that the Bangladesh government had sponsored accommodation for the observers it had invited.

Read more

The Great Game will continue

Partisan or fake observers make personal and biased comments about their observations or conclusions to the media. This is exactly what happened with many of the so-called independent observers on Sunday. For example, Paulo Casaca, the founder and executive director of the South Asia Democratic Forum (SADF), on at least two occasions while talking to the media implied that the opposition parties were involved in the Benapole Express arson incident of January 5 in Dhaka and also blamed previous election violence on them. "But the way to improve is not through violence, is not burning trains, is not destroying polling booths," were his words about improving the overall electoral environment.

In the recent past, Casaca's SADF was accused by EU Disinfo Lab, a Brussels-based disinformation research organisation, of facilitating a vast Indian disinformation campaign targeting China and Pakistan.

One of the observers, former US Congressman Jim Bates—who has been a controversial figure throughout his career and was accused of several instances of sexual harassment and for using bad checks to fund his election campaign in 1990—"found the election to be very peaceful, free, and fair." Bates' visit is apparently part of his offerings to the Bangladesh government as to lobbying "to engage the current congressmen and senators" in its favour, as discussed in a meeting with Bangladesh's ambassador in Washington in June 2021.

Read more

A review of the 2024 electoral drama

Another observer was Nicholas Powell, the political editor of EU Reporter—a dubious website based in Brussels that was exposed in a Politico investigation as portraying itself as an independent media organisation while secretly facilitating political influence campaigns. In a now-deleted marketing video on YouTube, EU Reporter's narrator says: "Our business model is to offer political parties, businesses, NGOs, industry associations, financial institutions and governments the opportunity to use EU Reporter to influence the European political decision-making process by sponsoring coverage and the placement of positive news stories and editorial comment related to them."

A German observer named Volker Uwe Friedrich, founder and CEO of lobbying and consulting firm GBP International, previously visited Bangladesh to attend a conference organised by SAARC Human Rights Foundation, a dubious organisation linked with a ruling party MP that had hired fake observers during the 2018 election.

Another election monitor named Richard Semitego visited Bangladesh several times over the past years to meet government ministers and ruling party leaders, and even attended a local political gathering in 2021 in Sunamganj alongside Planning Minister MA Mannan.

Read more

The guilt that comes with voting at a farcical election

Australian parliamentarian Shaoquett Moselmane, who was once investigated for his alleged involvement in a Chinese influence operation, met with Bangladesh government officials and Awami League leaders on several occasions. In November 2022, Moselmane moved a motion in the Legislative Council of New South Wales to celebrate the 76th birthday of Sheikh Hasina and highlight her government's successes.

None of the 11 individuals I searched about on the internet was representing any professional or renowned election observer organisation, two others turned out to be staff or owners of lobbying and consulting firms, while the last two and their credentials could not be traced online.

Qadaruddin Shishir is Bangladesh Fact Check Editor at AFP.

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.

We are deeply disappointed that what we feared has ultimately prevailed—an election timetable announced by the Election Commission (EC) in the glaring absence of a consensus among the major political parties over polls-time government. As the Awami League and its allies brought out celebratory processions all over the country, BNP and allies rejected the schedule, while the Left Democratic Alliance as well as the Gonotontro Moncho also denounced what they believe would be a sham of an election. Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Kazi Habibul Awal may well hope that the upcoming polls will be "free and fair, impartial, participatory… credible and praised at home and abroad," but we would be living in a fool's paradise if we believed that such a scenario is possible under these strained circumstances.

Read more

Are the ‘ghost’ cases fooling anyone?

Following the controversial elections of 2014—in AL won 153 seats uncontested—and in 2018—in which widespread irregularities and ballot stuffing took place—there have been repeated calls at home as well as from outside to hold a credible election. The government, unfortunately, seems to believe that holding an election under any circumstances is a "win" for the ruling party, wilfully ignoring that another discredited election will do irreparable damage to its own image and destroy whatever remains of our democratic institutions and aspirations. In the lead-up to the election, when it should have demonstrated its commitment to the democratic process, including upholding the opposition's constitutional right to freedom of assembly, the Awami League chose the path of retribution, arresting over 10,000 BNP activists and leaders, many on false or trumped-up charges. These actions, alongside the incendiary rhetoric from the top leaders of the party, have foreclosed any possibility of a dialogue.

Read more

Are we doomed to repeat past mistakes?

BNP, on the other hand, has also remained stubborn in its refusal to even attend a dialogue unless its one-point demand for the resignation of the government is met. Such an uncompromising stance, however legitimate the party may have felt its demand was, has not borne fruit and instead led it to a point of no return. At least 117 vehicles have been burnt all over the country from October 28 till November 15—during its blockade programme—and even if it claims to have played no part in the arson attacks and violence, it must ultimately realise the trap it is setting for itself by going down its chosen path. As a party that professes to speak for the people, it also should not ignore the loss of lives and livelihoods of people during the worst economic downturn the country has faced in decades.

Read more

Rights of prison inmates must be upheld

Even the CEC himself, in his televised speech to the nation, has admitted that if conflict and violence take place due to differences, instability can be created, which will have a negative impact on the election process. He must also realise that calling upon voters to go to the polling stations with "enthusiasm, courage, and confidence" during such a political climate is mere rhetoric. The CEC has once again urged for dialogue among the major political parties—a call which we wholeheartedly endorse.

However, the EC cannot simply put the blame on the parties for not attending dialogues without playing an active role in ensuring a level playing field for all. Thus far, the EC has maintained that its hands are tied regarding the mass arrests of the opposition until the announcement of the schedule. Can we now finally expect it to play its due role? If it wants the confidence of the major political parties, especially the opposition, the EC, whose track record is questionable at best, must do the hard work itself. After two consecutive controversial elections of 2014 and 2018, Bangladesh simply cannot afford another discredited election.

Leftists have rejected the recent election of Bangladesh alleging that state mechanisms were orchestrated to pull a victory of the Awami League.

The administration, law enforcement and intelligence agencies together played a role to influence the election in favour of Awami League, they alleged.

“We reject this fraudulent election and the fake government,” said Ruhin Hossain Prince, a leader of the Communist Party of Bangladesh (CPB).

The programme, a public hearing, held at Jatiya Press Club today, heard accounts of 82 Left Democratic Alliance candidates who took part in the election.

They alleged, all parties except for the components of Awami League-led alliance faced hindrance in every step before, during and after election. 

They also alleged, an adverse, fearful situation was created ahead of the election; activists of the AL and its associated bodies attacked rallies and processions of LDA candidates, removed their posters, even assaulted and threatened the candidates. 

Mohammad Shah Alam, coordinator of Left Democratic Alliance, demanded abolishing the 11th parliament and arrangement of a fresh election under a neutral administration.

He also said the alliance will wage movement for holding parliamentary polls under a caretaker government.

In a democracy, the heads of the government – both presidents and prime ministers – are the subjects of the most media coverage and the targets of most of its criticism. In Bangladesh's case, while the former is more than true, the latter is non-existent. Such is the state of our press freedom. What makes this phenomenon more disheartening is that there is no law that says the media cannot criticise the PM. Still, we have enchained ourselves to self-censorship, perhaps subconsciously remembering what Idi Amin once said when asked about press freedom in his country, "There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech."

The promptness and severity with which some social media critics of our PM have been jailed has created an atmosphere of intimidation. The existence of laws like the ICT, DSA, CSA, etc, the misuse of defamation and other laws, and the collective demonisation of independent media by the pulpits of power and their cacophonous resonance from a domesticated media have taught us better.

It is against this backdrop that we raise a question about a remark made by the prime minister, last Tuesday, about the BNP chief's treatment abroad. Our PM said, "…she is 80 years old, at this age death is imminent; and she is also sick, so why this hullabaloo? No amount of crying will help this situation…" (own translation from the original in Bangla).

Read more

The major economic concerns ahead of the election

By this, did the PM mean that, as Khaleda Zia is 80 years old, we should stand back and see her wither away? Don't we believe that it is the Almighty who decides when a person's time comes to make the Eternal Journey? Is it not the practice in every country, culture and religion to extend all possible help to save a person's life? Whether a person will live beyond 80 or not is not our decision to make. Our duty is to try our best and do everything in our power to save the person's life. That's what civilisation is all about. One may have hundreds of reasons to despise their opponent, but such public comments can only further fuel hatred.

Our PM made another statement on Monday, in which she said, "Democracy must continue in Bangladesh at any cost. In no way should the undemocratic forces assume power."

We support her wholeheartedly on this score. It is a point of Bangladesh's pride that, however flawed it may be, we continue to practise democracy and have made significant economic progress while remaining within its broad framework. But is the PM's government and her party working to strengthen it? Did her continuous rule for the past 15 years – 20 years if we count her first term – enjoying unrivalled power and undisturbed tenure (no hartals or disruptions) – consolidate democracy? Did this unfettered rule, never before enjoyed by any other party or even military dictator, strengthen any of the institutions of democracy, such as the parliament, judiciary, media and statutory bodies, that ensure accountability and rights?

While the PM reiterated her commitment to democracy, her party's secretary general and roads and transport minister, Obaidul Quader, remarked in a public meeting on Tuesday, "Where is the sanction? Where is the visa policy? Secret negotiations have been completed so there is nothing to worry about." "Sanction" and "visa policy" point to the secret negotiations with the US. He further said, "The US needs Delhi. Delhi is there, we are there." This implies that the second party in the secret deal must be India. So, according to the secretary general of the ruling party, a secret deal has been worked out with the US and India so that the AL will have "nothing to worry about."

Read more

‘If an election is not participatory, it is neither free nor fair’

This implies, based on the words of the ruling party secretary general, as Delhi supports it, AL will continue to be in power. What else can "nothing to worry about" mean? And what does this say about our sovereignty and dignity as a country and a people? About the independence of our government, since its continuance in power is apparently determined by our neighbour? What does this say about the relevance of our elections?

Where does all this leave us, the voters? In the 2014 election, 153 MPs were elected uncontested. For a house of 300 MPs, that meant that a majority was attained to form the next government without a single vote being cast. Then, in 2018, voting took place the night before. And this time around, the "result" of the election is being "negotiated" with external powers. Is that how democracy works these days in Bangladesh? Is that what the AL secretary general is referring to when he says "khela hobe (the game is on)"? It seems our election is all set to be an example of "match-fixing" rather than of "fair play."

Election season in a democracy is when power changes hands from the government to the people. Theoretically, it is an occasion when the people once again feel empowered. Tragically, this is not the case for Bangladesh.

If we analyse how the government is oppressing the opposition under a legal guise, it becomes evident that the "level playing field" does not exist for them. Whatever other records this government may have set, nothing compares to the use of court cases to victimise the opposition. According to sources at the BNP office, around 1.12 lakh cases have been filed implicating 39.78 lakh BNP leaders and activists since 2009. In addition, there are "unnamed accused" whose number exceeds those of the named. (The latter category is used by police to implicate anybody at whatever stage of an investigation, to extort bribes.) Even if we disregard 50 percent of these – taking into account possible exaggeration – nothing can explain this amount of lawsuits except political victimisation.

Read more

Column by Mahfuz Anam: Free and fair elections for our sake, not because of US visa policy

According to a September 20 report by Prothom Alo, Habib un Nabi, joint secretary general of BNP, has 450 cases against him; Saiful Alam, past president of Jubo Dal, has 350 cases against him; Jahangir Hossain, leader of the youth wing of BNP, faces 317 cases; Sultan Salahuddin, president of Jubo Dal, has 315 cases against him; Amanullah Aman, adviser to the BNP chairperson, is facing 250 cases; and 180 cases have been made against Senior Joint Secretary General Ruhul Kabir Rizvi. Most senior members of BNP's highest decision-making body – the standing committee – have cases against them. There are many others who have more than 150 cases against each of them. Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir, secretary general of BNP, has 98 cases filed against him. A senior female leader, Selina Rahman, who is more than 80 years old, has four cases against her, one of which is for arson – specifically for setting fire to a bus. Appearing in court for each case can easily take up the whole year. Most of these cases are 5-10 years old and have remained dormant for most of the ruling party's tenure. Now that the election is approaching, suddenly, these cases are acquiring a new life, with police becoming too eager to "serve the law."

We don't need any other statistic but the above example of cases against the biggest opposition to prove that all claims by the government and Awami League about holding a free and fair election is far from credible.

Our chief election commissioner (CEC) said on Wednesday that he is not worried about the "legitimacy" of the elections and is determined to hold "a lawful election." That is precisely what we are afraid of. Again, in 2014, as many as 153 MPs were "elected" uncontested. These so-called elections were legally "correct." But were they morally and ethically so? Was it an exercise in democracy? How do you think 4,80,21,983 voters out of a total of 9,19,65,167 felt when they could not cast their votes, for which they had waited five years?

Yes, we must have a "lawful election," but it must also be a "credible election" – credible to the voters and not simply to the winning party. By far, the most important aspect of an election is the "free and unfettered expression of the public will." Ensuring this is the most important task of the Election Commission, not only the formal compliance with the law. The CEC must be conscious of democratic, moral and ethical aspects of an election, not just the legal ones.

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.

I begin this article with the following friendly piece of advice from a well-wisher from Sri Lanka, a country that has nothing but the best of interests for Bangladesh and its people at its heart.

"To my dearest Bangladeshis,

I am overjoyed by what you have achieved. Truth be told, given my experience with the Monarchy in Bangladesh, I didn't think such an outcome was possible.

But let's remember, this victory is just the beginning—10 percent of the journey. The real challenge lies ahead. This is where we, Sri Lankans, faltered.

We once chanted that we didn't need anyone in parliament to run our country, and now, two years later, we're left with no option but to vote for the same old faces. Our revolution, in essence, accomplished nothing.

The Bangladeshi revolution, driven by students, now needs structure and formality. You can't depend on the current parliamentarians to bring about the change you seek. The youth, the educated, and those truly desiring change must take the reins.

Do not ease up now—the war has just begun… Set aside your ideologies and focus on shaping Bangladesh into the nation you want for your children."

Read more

Can a proportional representation system ensure better democracy?

The message conveyed above is as potent in substance as it is relevant to the dramatically changed situation in Bangladesh post-August 5. It is, at the same time, philosophical and emotion laden. Importantly, the author speaks from firsthand experience, as Sri Lanka underwent a similar people's revolution only two years back when the sitting president had to flee the country in the face of widespread public protests. The author's frustrations with the faltering of the revolution in the teardrop-shaped gem in the Indian Ocean is evident—and they hope the mistakes made there would not be repeated here.

For us in Bangladesh, comparisons with Sri Lanka must also be viewed alongside our own "1/11" experience and what went wrong with it. To begin with, unlike the 2007-08 "government," the present administration must not set any arbitrary deadline for the end of the interregnum. Instead, it should set about incorporating a set of fundamental reforms, focusing on eliminating the zero-sum game that the existing political structure in Bangladesh enables.

A genuine friend of Bangladesh, who had a ringside view of events, believes that "during the 2007-08 period, nobody in Bangladesh or abroad actually believed that the chief adviser, or his colleagues were calling the shots. While some of the advisers played supporting roles in that administration, in the end, decisions were made by the army chief and a small circle of uniformed subordinates (who often provided him with conflicting advice)." This, the friend believes, resulted in the notorious "minus two" policy, which was doomed to fail as it was shortsightedly aimed at reforming political parties and not the system.

This ultimately weakened those within the parties who were interested in reforms, and it made "reform" sound like a dirty word. The 2007-08 "government's" insistence that it was not "political" reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of how government works. While the caretaker regimes are not partisan (in traditional Bangladeshi terms), by their very nature, any government is political, and therefore all its actions impact the political structure.

This is not to say that the military has no role in the current scenario. Rather, the military must be subordinate to the civilian government and play a supporting role—acting only if and when requested by their civilian superiors.

Some of the basic reforms that the interim government must set in pace may include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:

First, all future parliamentary elections should be held under a non-party caretaker government, the term of which should not exceed 90 days. The modalities of such a caretaker government may be worked out in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, including all registered political parties and civil society. Such a system will not only ensure the legitimacy and credibility of the elections but also greatly enhance the role and image of the Election Commission. Hopefully, this will also eliminate the prevailing and pervasive culture of deep distrust among the political parties.

Second, the existing "first-past-the-post" system should be replaced with a system of proportional representation in parliament. This will eliminate the "winner-takes-all" phenomenon that debilitates the political culture in Bangladesh. Since Kazi Habibul Awal has already written extensively on this topic, I choose not to delve too deeply here, except to add that the Sri Lankan model may be studied as a possible template.

Third, it is high time that Bangladesh has a bicameral legislature that most, if not all, developed democracies have. While the structure and the terms of reference of such a legislature may be discussed and deliberated with all stakeholders, it will likely ensure government accountability—a feature that is currently conspicuous by its absence.

Read more

Principles, party, power or politics?

Fourth, Bangladesh, with a current population of more than 170 million and growing, must move towards creating elected provincial governments with proper devolution of powers. Sri Lanka, with a much smaller population, has provincial governments, even though the country had gone through a long and bloody civil war that threatened its very territorial integrity. The other model that could be looked at is the Indonesian one, where in addition to having a bicameral legislature at the centre, it has elected provincial legislatures and an elected governor.

The steps suggested above, if implemented in the right spirit, would take time to formulate. Therefore, setting any timetable for elections at this time would be ill advised. Once the necessary reforms are instituted, politics in Bangladesh will fall in line.

I have deliberately refrained from discussing the importance of ensuring the independence of institutions that belong to the state and not to any ruling party.

Last but certainly not least, the interim government should be prepared for the unexpected. Just as Sheikh Hasina never would have predicted the spark that ultimately lit the fuse that ended her regime, all governments must be ready to deal with any contingency.

Shamsher M Chowdhury, Bir Bikram, is a former foreign secretary of Bangladesh.

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.