How do we describe the upcoming election?
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.
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.
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.