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.

The families of two teenagers killed in Mohammadpur during a clash of Awami League factions ahead of the general election have been robbed of justice.

The family members of one of the victims said police submitted the final report in the case without talking to them. The report mentioned no clash even though it was widely covered by the media at that time. It termed the incident an “accident”.

Councillor Tarequzzaman Rajib of ward-33 also threatened the father of one of the victims not to file a murder case, they said. 

A case was filed after the November 10, 2018, incident and the father of one of the teens was made the plaintiff.  

The father maintains he did not file the case and that the signature on the case document could not be his since he is illiterate. He said Councillor Rajib put a gun to his head and told him to do as he said after the incident. 

The families opened up to this paper only after Rajib was arrested this week. 

On the morning of November 10, 2018, a procession of vehicles, largely comprised of flatbeds, with supporters of AL leader Sadek Khan was going towards the AL Dhanmondi office to buy nomination paper for Sadek’s candidacy in the polls.  

Mohammad Sujon, 19, and Arif Hossain, 14, were on one of the pickup trucks when the procession was attacked allegedly by the men of rival AL leader and then lawmaker Jahangir Kabir Nanak.  

During the melee Sujon and Arif fell off the vehicle and the driver, trying to avoid the brick chunks being hurled at the pickup, reversed and ran the two over, according to case documents, news reports, witness accounts, and statements of the families.  

Sujan and Arif died in hospital. 

Arif’s father Faruk Hossain was taken to a community centre in Mohammadpur when he was on his way to the hospital. He was confined there for 12 hours by Rajib’s men, Faruk told The Daily Star.  

Late at night, Rajib, reportedly Nanak’s ally, at the community centre told Faruk to go to the police station to talk about getting the body of his son. 

Faruk then went to the police station, gave his details, and told the officials there what he knew about the incident. He had no idea that police were filing a case making him the plaintiff. The police officials there asked him to identify the body at the Suhrawardy hospital, Faruk said.  

On his way to the hospital from the police station, two men stopped him near Shia Masjid and took him to Rajib’s home.  

Rajib told him at gunpoint to do as he said regarding the matter, Faruk told The Daily Star.  

“You wouldn’t get anything if you file a murder case. Instead, you will be harassed and face the same consequences as your son. You are from Lalmonhon of Bhola and so am I. Do what I say. You will get a good compensation,” Faruk quoted Rajib as saying. 

Faruk eventually identified his son’s body the next day.

Faruk said, “After the incident, I thought it was police who were the plaintiff in the case.

“This is my NID, sir. See, I can’t sign,” Faruk showed his NID to this correspondent which had his thumb print. 

Faruk said not a single police officer talked to him about the investigation since then. 

Sujon’s uncle Md Riaz told The Daily Star last night that the police never talked to them either.

He said councillor Rajib had promised them compensation and jobs for family members but he never delivered.

Sujon’s family did not know that the final report was submitted. They heard it first from The Daily Star correspondent.

After “investigating” the case for 11 months, police submitted the final report terming the incident an “accident”.

Police had arrested convener of Jubo League’s Adabar Thana unit Arifur Rahman Tuhin in connection with leading the attack but in the final report police said they found no evidence of Tuhin’s involvement.  

Rajib, on behalf of then MP Nanak, had given Arif’s family Tk 30,000 and Sujon’s family Tk 25,000 as burial cost. 

After the incident, AL General Secretary Obaidul Quader said the prime minister directed the authorities concerned to submit a probe report over the incident within two days. 

Whoever is found involved would be given exemplary punishment, he had said, adding that the prime minister wanted to know “who destroyed the peaceful election environment”. 

Sub-Inspector Mukul Ranjan of Mohammadpur police station, investigation officer (IO) of the case, said they submitted the final report of the case in the first week of this month as they could not find any evidence or witnesses. 

Police also could not identify the pickup truck and its driver. 

In the final report, police said the two factions of the ruling party came “face to face” near Mohammadi Homes Ltd on November 10 when the unidentified driver reversed in a hurry and could not see what was behind him. This led to the two getting run over.  

The SI in his investigation found no evidence of the clash. He only said the two faction came “face to face”. The media, however, had extensive coverage of the incident.  

They reported that the attackers, armed with hammers, sharp weapons and brick chunks, swooped on the procession of vehicles.  

The IO said said Faruk did not know what had actually happened and had “filed the case” based on hearsay.  

Taking to this newspaper, the SI claimed that he did not find anything in CCTV footage and no local wanted to be a witness. 

Asked why the IO never contacted Faruk, the IO first claimed that he had contacted him but later said they could not reach him. 

The IO claimed that Faruk had indeed filed the case.  

At one stage of the conversation with this correspondent, the IO said he had written the final report with direction from a superior officer of Tejgaon Division Police. 

Anisur Rahman, deputy commissioner (Tejgaon division) of Dhaka Metropolitan Police, told The Daily Star that he had no knowledge about the development of the case as he joined the division only a few months ago. 

“I will have to see the documents,” he added. 

In November last year, Nanak said he had nothing to do with the attack on the procession.  

Sadek had said that he did not want to blame anyone and demanded a proper investigation. 

The Daily Star could not reach Nanak and Sadek for comments over the last few days.

The 1970 Pakistan election was considered the "fairest and cleanest" election in Pakistan's history, which paved the way for Bangladesh's independence from Pakistan. However, Bangladesh has failed to institutionalise a sound electoral process in the 53 years since independence. Even though all elections held under caretaker governments (CG) were termed as mostly free and fair, elections held under political governments lacked credibility; some were even considered farcical. The key reason is political interference into the workings of election administration by successive political governments since 1972. To stay in power, the ruling class in most cases conducts purely decorative and ritualalistic elections denying independence to the Bangladesh Election Commission (BEC) and politicising other institutions with electoral responsibilities such as law enforcement agencies, local administration, judiciary, etc. aiming to manipulate election results.

The democracy-loving people of Bangladesh, where elections are festivals, are waiting to exercise their franchise in the 13th parliamentary elections. However, to ensure requisite institutional conditions for holding the next elections, the interim government needs ample time to rebuild Bangladesh's electoral institutions. The interim government and the new election commission, which is expected to be formed soon, must address the following key immediate issues not only to guide Bangladesh towards conducting genuine democratic elections but also to render the commission a professional citizens' organisation.

Read more

The AL cannot validate this farce of an election with intimidation

First, the country needs an independent election commission (EC) free from political intervention. The first and foremost step towards an independent EC is the recruitment of credible and non-partisan authorities with a demonstrated commitment to democracy and accountability to citizens. However, the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Appointment Act, 2022 is incomplete, as it lacks recruitment criteria for commissioners, excludes citizen scrutiny, and does not ensure transparency. Moreover, the loopholes around this law allow the ruling class to easily recruit loyal people as election commissioners. Therefore, the interim government should engage an expert pool to review and propose amendments to the law to ensure it is comprehensive, adheres to international best practices, and ensures the recruitment of commissioners capable of neutrally performing their functions.

Second, no EC around the world can conduct credible elections alone. They need support from various institutions, including the police and civil service. During elections, the EC should emerge as the de facto government authority on election administration, assuming total control over police and bureaucracy, and cutting its link with the political government completely. Political neutrality of electoral institutions is paramount. However, due to blatant politicisation of state institutions, some police personnel in particular played a blatant role in ensuring victory of ruling party candidates, including widespread ballot stuffing in multiple elections held under a political government. In order to neutralise temporary poll officials, including police, the IG should amend the Election Officers (Special Regulations) Act, 1991 so that no temporary poll officials, including returning officers and police, can play a biased role in any future elections.

Third, the EC should become a citizens' organisation. In genuine democratic elections, citizens are "the ultimate controlling power." Therefore, EC-decision making must be based on citizens' voices to make the EC "of the people, by the people and for the people." The new EC should conduct its work transparently, including adopting a transparency guideline so that Bangladesh can benefit from an EC that is fully accountable to citizens.

Read more

Bangladesh's election formality is over. What’s next?

Fourth, an election cannot be termed as credible if opposition parties do not participate and if there is a lack of qualified candidates running for office. The UN declared that "political contestants (parties, candidates and supporters of positions on referenda) have vested interests in the electoral process through their rights to be elected and to participate directly in government." In Bangladesh, there are allegations that some qualified political parties were denied registration with the EC, while parties that did not meet the registration criteria were enlisted. Lack of participation of all qualified political parties raises questions about the credibility of elections. Therefore, both the IG and the EC, before the next election should create equal opportunity for all political parties to participate in elections. 

Fifth, election observation in Bangladesh has never been professionalised due to official and unofficial political intervention of the ruling party and EC restrictions. While election observers are a key electoral stakeholder, the EC never established professional relationships with observer organisations. Instead, many credible observers were labelled as "politically biased" when they published credible election observation reports. 

There are many examples of political, election-time governments thwarting effective election monitoring by pressuring election observers in multiple ways. Practices that negatively impacted past observations efforts include NGO Affairs Bureau cancelling previously approved funds for observing organisations to prevent them from carrying out their mandates; intelligence agencies subjecting election observers to intense scrutiny, which discouraged observers from conducting election monitoring; BEC issuing credentials during the night preceding election day, preventing observers from traveling to their desired constituency, and restricting observers' movement.

Read more

How do we describe the upcoming election?

Due to such barriers, most credible organisations stopped observing elections in Bangladesh. The IG and the BEC should develop a strategy not only to professionalise election observation but also to build a culture of accrediting credible election observation organisations as an integral part of elections. 

Elections are of paramount importance to a country's quality of democratic governance. They are the means through which people voice their preferences and choose their representatives. I strongly believe the presence of an interim government creates an opportunity to bring elections back to the citizens of Bangladesh, including establishing a sustainable electoral mechanism which no longer change the rules of the game to engineer electoral outcomes.

Dr Md Abdul Alim is an elections specialist, currently working as principal director with Democracy International, and previously served as director of the Election Working Group.

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.

Analyses of Bangladesh's last three elections would reveal the dark side of our politics, which to a large extent replicates practices marked by a policy of exclusiveness, keeping the major opposition party out of the fray, and creating a loyal opposition obligated to the ruling party. It is disheartening to see the ruling party, a political party with established credentials, replicate a highly undemocratic innovation of a military ruler of keeping a tamed opposition in parliament. In fact, in its turn, the Awami League has gone a step further and appointed a few of them as cabinet ministers.

The 12th parliamentary election is just round the corner, and Bangladesh has come under international radar in this regard. Our development partners, the UK and US in particular, have expressed their views on the type of elections they would like to see in 2023. The US ambassador did not mince words when he said that his country wanted to see a fair and "internationally" acceptable election in Bangladesh. It has also engaged the attention, and rightly so, of the ruling party.

Firstly, no election would be valid without the participation of the other major political party, the BNP. And here lies the problem. BNP is loath to participate in the next general election under the current government running the administration. And the Awami League would not have it any other way. It would not relinquish power before the expiry of its term. The respective positions expose the irony of the situation in which we see a reversal of the previously held positions of the two parties. Awami League, once a strident votary of a neutral caretaker system, no longer thinks it a good idea, and the BNP, which had initially opposed the idea, thinks that the only way a free and fair election could be ensured is by having a neutral body at the helm of the administration.

Read more

How fares the opposition in Bangladesh?

I believe both the ideas are fundamentally flawed. The most important point the two parties have missed is that neither the ruling party nor the administration under it runs the election. And it is not the caretaker government, if there is one, which would conduct the elections either. It is the Election Commission (EC) that organises and conducts the election with the support of the administration. So why these rigid positions?

Take the BNP's position, for example. Once bitten, twice shy, the BNP made a blunder in 2014 but participated in the elections in 2018, only to burn its fingers. The 2018 election was an election that never was. It was an aberration that sapped the Election Commission's credibility and people's interest in politics. Therefore, the BNP is not remiss in thinking that with Awami League in power, a free and fair election is not possible. And none other than the former chief election commissioner (CEC) has very recently admitted that there are challenges in holding the polls under a party government. It would have been a great help had he spelt out what the challenges were that he had faced in his five years in office. It is a sad reflection on our system that while other democracies have elections with the incumbent in charge of the administration without anyone questioning its credibility, we need special dispensation to conduct our parliamentary elections. And this is only because the institutions and agencies in these countries work independently and possess enough spine to resist undue pressure. Thus, the gripe.

But why is the Awami League so unsure of itself as not to accept a neutral dispensation running the administration during the conduct of national elections? It had claimed in 2014, as it does now, that it was riding the crest of popularity with its many achievements. Thus, one may ask: Did it have to resort to the blatant measures and ploys to ensure victory in 2014 and 2018? If one would need a lantern to find BNP leaders during elections, as some Awami League leaders think, then why not relent on your position? The Padma Bridge is a purple patch of the Hasina administration, and should be a vote catcher for the party. So why the uncertainty? Why so many new ordinances to stifle free speech? Why equate the party with the state? Why root for a voting apparatus which has been discarded by most of the leading democracies in the world because of its susceptibility to tampering – the electronic voting machine (EVM)?

Read more

Of Lemon, Soap, Vaseline and EVMs

Participatory elections do not necessarily mean a free and fair election. And we know that. Ultimately, it is the CEC and his commissioners who can make all the difference. An acceptable election depends on the Election Commission's ability to display its grit and resolve, exercise its writ, remain neutral, and be prompt to address complaints and proactive in detecting violations – unlike the former CEC and his team, whose belated reaction to any complaint was its hallmark. The million-dollar question is: Can the new Election Commission absorb the pressure of the ruling party, prevent the government's direct and indirect influence in the election process, and provide a level playing field for everybody? Past experiences in general do not engender confidence in the system.

In the final analysis, there are more compelling reasons for the BNP to participate in the election, and for the Awami League to allow an acceptable, free, fair and participatory election without resorting to the means of the past two. For the BNP, it would not like to be in the political wilderness it has been in the last 10 years. In 2018, everything was done to ensure that the BNP did not get the second highest number of seats and become the major opposition in parliament. Certainly, it deserved to win more than the six seats it did the last time. As for the Awami League, its seriousness in making the next election participatory is demonstrated by the comments of senior party members, including the prime minister. There is a realisation in the ruling party that the kind of elections held in 2014 and 2018 would no longer wash. The next election has to be not only accepted nationally, but internationally too. The question is whether the two can reach an agreement that would include arrangements of holding the Jatiya Sangsad election, making it impervious to the ruling party's influence.

Brig Gen Shahedul Anam Khan, ndc, psc (retd) is a former associate editor of The Daily Star.