Nearly half of the BNP candidates who took part in Sunday's election lost their security deposits for failing to secure the minimum votes, according to an analysis of the results of 214 constituencies.

This is the highest number of BNP candidates to have lost security money since the party was formed in 1979.

Under the election law, candidates have to deposit a certain amount of money to the government exchequer to stand in the election. The amount is fixed before every election, and it was Tk 20,000 per candidate this year.

To get the money back, candidates must obtain at least one-eighth of the total vote cast in their seats.

But as many as 214 BNP candidates bagged only 13 percent of the total votes. Of them, 101 candidates secured fewer than one-eighth votes and lost their security money, according to the analysis by The Daily Star.

According to the unofficial results from 298 seats, the AL has bagged 259 seats, Jatiya Party 20 and BNP only five seats.

The BNP has never faced such a situation in any election since June 1996, when it became the largest opposition party in parliament with 116 seats. In that election, only 36 BNP candidates lost their security money.

Even in the 2008 polls, when it bagged just 30 seats, only 14 BNP candidates lost their deposits.

In that polls, held under an army-backed caretaker government, the party fielded 260 candidates and won 32 percent of the total votes cast in those constituencies.

The BNP boycotted the 2014 parliamentary polls, as the ruling Awami League government refused to meet its demand for an election under a nonpartisan administration.

This time, its candidates lost their security deposits even in the districts traditionally known as BNP stronghold -- Chattogram, Noakhali, Feni, Cumilla and Natore.

For example, the BNP candidate in Chattagram-1 got only 3,911 votes. In 2008, the party candidate secured 94,665 votes there.

In Cumilla-5, the BNP nominee got 12,113 votes this time, down from 77,260 in 2008. In Feni-2, the party candidate got 1,20,297 votes in 2008 polls and won the seat. In Sunday's election, the BNP aspirant got just 5,784 votes.

In Laxmipur-1, the BNP candidate secured 74,276 votes in 2008. It came down to just 3,892 this time. 

In Natore-1 and 2, the party candidates got 15,338 votes and 13,197 respectively this time, down from over 1 lakh votes in each of these seats in 2008.

Observation by local and foreign observers may help add credence to the status of fairness of election and make them credible at home and abroad, the chief election commissioner (CEC) said in a letter to the EU.

CEC Kazi Habibul Awal was responding to a letter sent by the European Union informing him of its decision not to send a full-fledged observation mission for Bangladesh's upcoming national election.

"As I appreciate EU decision on the subject, I feel urged to assure you that with required assistance received from the government, Election Commission (EC) will exert its best to ensure free, fair, participatory and credible elections. Government is also repeatedly making its pledges to achieve this end," the CEC said in the letter dated September 23.

"Nevertheless, observation by local and foreign observers may help add credence to the status of fairness of election so as to make that credible at home and abroad.

"Be that as it may, I believe the European Union (EU) will nonetheless continue to support, in whatever way deemed expedient, our efforts in making the ensuing general parliamentary elections free, fair, participatory and credible," the letter added.

EU communicated its decision to the EC through a letter to the chief election commissioner on Wednesday.

"Based on the recommendations of the exploratory mission -- and taking into consideration the budget for EU Election Observation Missions for 2023/2024 -- High Representative Josep Borrell has decided not to deploy a fully-fledged EU Election Observation Mission," read the EU letter.

"The High Representative's decision reflects the fact that, at the present time, it is not sufficiently clear whether the necessary conditions will be met at the point in time when the elections take place," read the letter written by EU Ambassador to Bangladesh Charles Whiteley.

In June this year, many had described the Cumilla City Corporation elections as a "trial run" for the Election Commission's competence in organising polls, especially in terms of using electronic voting machines (EVMs). The results, unfortunately, left much to be desired. Not only did the EC fail to enforce electoral law when a local MP defied its code of conduct, but there was a great deal of controversy around the use of EVMs as well, leading to pandemonium during the declaration of results. The chaos surrounded the fact that there was no mechanism to audit or verify the results, or to question the influence of election officials operating the machines, regardless of how dubious said results might seem.

On what scientific basis did the EC decide on using EVMs? And how does it answer the questions being raised about its independence?

Civil society organisations are continuing to raise such concerns to this day. According to SHUJAN: Citizens for Good Governance, there is a huge lack of transparency surrounding EVMs, especially the audit cards via which election results are collected, and which can be tampered with in the absence of a voter-verifiable paper audit trail. There are also confusions over whether EVM software can be manipulated. Beyond that, there are worries that the provision for EVM overwrite by election officials – where the presiding officer is allowed to use the ballot when there are issues with the EVM registering fingerprints – could also be used to manipulate election results.

Read more

How do we get the goons out of the EVM booths?

These concerns have been repeated by opposition political parties as well. However, we have not seen the EC take any concrete steps to set their minds at ease. In fact, the EC has declared that EVMs will be used in around 150 constituencies in the next general election. This will require the use of around 5 lakh audit cards, meaning it will be impossible to find the time and resources to run forensic analysis on such a huge number of cards to ensure they are not tampered with. On what scientific basis did the EC decide on using EVMs? And how does it answer the questions being raised about its independence?

Read more

EC’s big nothing: From a crowning moment to a humbling experience

The EC has claimed it will do everything to ensure free and fair elections. To this end, it has even held dialogues with opposition parties, but the decision regarding EVMs makes clear that their demands were taken lightly. Over the past week, we have also witnessed BNP rallies in multiple districts being systematically attacked by ruling party men, sometimes with the help of police. Does the EC still believe this is a conducive environment for free elections? And if not, what does it intend to do about it?

It is up to the EC to ensure that the people are able to cast their votes. Against the backdrop of increasing election violence and political repression, choosing a system of voting that has been roundly described by experts as dampening voter turnout is yet another wrong decision from an increasingly long list curated by the EC.

The passing of the Representation of the People Order (Amendment) Bill, 2023 in parliament is an extremely worrying development. At a time when we are all looking forward to a free and fair election – which is presupposed by the independence of the Election Commission – the passage of the bill, which will reduce the power of the EC to cancel polls, will only dampen the possibility of it being free and fair. On the face of it, the message is obvious: the rule has been passed to restrain the EC.

Read more

Shouldn’t the EC be saying how it will make elections free and fair?

Already as it exists through law and practice, the EC is hamstrung in many ways. For example, even though the law says that during elections, the administration is supposed to work under the EC, this is only on paper; in reality, it does not happen at all. The chief election commissioner himself has spoken about it. And it has been widely reported on and discussed as well. Now, the EC's hands have been further tied legally.

Specifically, there are two aspects in the amendment that are worrying. The first is the curtailment of the EC's power to suspend polls. The law minister has justified the move by saying that suspending polls in an entire constituency over disturbances in some polling stations is "undemocratic." But what happens if irregularities occur in the majority of polling centres? Will the EC have to stamp its approval just because voting could happen without irregularities in some centres? The amendment takes the same problem to the other extreme. Moreover, the law minister's claim seems to give the impression that the EC would just whimsically suspend polls. Surely, under ideal circumstances, the EC would suspend polls only if it deemed it absolutely necessary.

The second issue is the curtailment of the EC's mandate to suspend polls from during the election period – which is typically about 40 days from when the election schedule is announced to the election day – to only on the "polling day." So, from around 40 days, the EC's power to suspend polls has been reduced to only one day and that also only in the troubled centres. But what happens if large-scale irregularities happen before the officially declared election day, which has blatantly taken place before?

Read more

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

Again, these are clear indications that the bill has been passed to constrain the EC's operating capacity. Given the history of our elections and timidity of ECs and their commissioners, it has made the prospect of free and fair elections further improbable.