Election Commission (EC) officials have said that if the armed forces are explicitly included in the legal definition under the Local Government Elections Act, no separate order would be required to deploy the three armed forces for election duties. They also noted that members of the armed forces, like the police, could be assigned to polling stations and would have the authority to make arrests without a warrant.
Local government elections have generally seen relatively higher levels of conflict and violence, and the police often struggle to contain such situations. There is a widespread public perception that deploying military personnel would reduce electoral fraud and violence. The EC's recent remarks appear to reflect that.
At present, Awami League is banned from carrying out political activities. It is a major political party, and any attempts by it to remain active despite the ban tend to create unease within the administration. The party's supporters are also highly active on social media. Recently when they announced plans to hold public programs, the government responded forcefully. The army was deployed with magistracy powers. This suggests that the party's social media campaign had, to some extent, caused concern within the government, even though, in the end, nothing significant actually happened.
Meanwhile, Jamaat-e-Islami, the main opposition party in Jatiya Sangsad (National Parliament), has called for the inclusion of a provision that would disqualify any officeholder or active member of a political party whose activities have been banned by the government from participating in local government elections. The party made this demand in its submission to the Election Commission (EC) on 30 June regarding the draft code of conduct for local government elections, even though the issue has no direct relevance to the election code of conduct.
Sources within the EC also indicate that accommodating Jamaat's proposal would require amendments to the relevant provisions of the law governing candidates' eligibility and disqualification for elections. However, the EC has no plans at present to introduce such an amendment.
For generations, local government elections in the country were held on a non-partisan basis. Many candidates were affiliated with political parties, and this was never a secret. Officially, however, they did not use their party's name or symbol in their campaigns or on their posters.
It was common for multiple candidates from the same political party to compete for the same office. The candidate with greater influence, stronger organisational backing, or broader popular support would usually win. That was how the system functioned for many years. Then, for reasons of its own, the government of Sheikh Hasina changed the system by introducing a law requiring local government elections to be contested on a party basis. In support of the change, it argued that Bangladesh was not unique and that similar systems existed in a number of other countries.
The government cited the United Kingdom as an example. Fair enough, but did it also regard the UK as a model of democratic governance? There, when a party performs poorly in an election or loses, the parliamentary leader or party leader typically resigns, making way for new leadership. Do our political leaders follow that example? Not at all. Here, once someone reaches the top of a political party or the government, nothing short of death is likely to remove them from that position.
When a particular system works to their advantage, politicians eagerly embrace it. But when they find that it works against their interests or creates internal competition for leadership, they avoid it altogether. That is the essence of political opportunism.
In any case, there now appears to be broad political consensus that the next local government elections should be held on a non-partisan basis. All that remains is for the necessary legislation to be enacted. Against this backdrop, what is the rationale behind Jamaat-e-Islami's demand? If the elections are not to be contested on party lines, how can it be argued that members of a particular party should be excluded from the electoral process?
Some political parties have come to believe that if local government elections are held on a non-partisan basis, it would provide an opportunity for Awami League members to re-enter the political arena and regain momentum. Their opposition to this possibility may rest on two arguments.
First, they view the Awami League as a fascist party. In their view, while in power it committed numerous abuses and acts of misconduct, and therefore it should not be given any opportunity to re-establish itself politically.
Second, those who were previously affiliated with the Awami League and who are now staying quiet or in hiding out of fear of arrest or harassment under the changed circumstances may take advantage of the situation and win various local government positions. This would result in their political rehabilitation.
If Awami League-affiliated candidates fail to receive votes in local government elections, or receive very few votes, then we can say that the people of the country have rejected the party.
Those who have committed wrongdoing or crimes can be brought under the law and punished. That is acceptable. But how many such offenders are there? Beyond them, there are also countless Awami League leaders, activists, supporters, and sympathisers. How many of them are there?
Even if we exclude the election held under special arrangements in 2008 and instead consider the relatively more competitive elections held between 1991 and 2001 as a benchmark, the Awami League’s share of the vote was still around one-third of the total electorate. That number would amount to roughly 30–40 million people today.
Let us assume that after 15 years of manipulating elections and running a poor government, the party has lost public support. The extent of that decline cannot be calculated without surveys. Even if we assume that half of the party’s voters have become disillusioned and angry with the Awami League, it would still have 15–20 million supporters.
If the Awami League is truly such a bad party, if the allegations that it deceived the people and the country and pushed the nation toward bankruptcy are true, why not leave the responsibility of proving these claims to the voters? If Awami League-affiliated candidates fail to receive votes in local government elections, or receive very few votes, then we can say that the people of the country have rejected the party. What is the difficulty in allowing that to happen?
What other justification can there be for keeping those who carry the “stigma” of the Awami League out of elections as “independent candidates,” unless they are considered serious political competitors? Does Jamaat-e-Islami lack confidence in its own strength and capability? Does it believe that Awami League remains more popular than itself and that it fears facing Awami League candidates in an election?
Those who wanted an undivided India in 1947, or those who did not want Pakistan to be created under the leadership of the Muslim League, were taking political positions. Holding such positions was not a crime. Likewise, those who wanted Pakistan to remain united took a position against the independence of Bangladesh. That was their political stance. Taking such a political position was also not a crime.
The crime was supporting and assisting the atrocities of 1971 and becoming involved in crimes against humanity. Similarly, I believe that the several crore (tens of millions of) citizens who supported Awami League politics did not commit any crime merely by doing so. Those who were involved in crimes such as election manipulation, vote rigging, looting, killings, enforced disappearances, beating members of opposition parties, and forcing them to flee their homes should be individually brought to justice and given exemplary punishment. But that is not what we are seeing. It appears that politics will continue after carrying out only some “cosmetic” trials. That would be another form of deception.
The country does not belong to any single party. The country belongs to 170–180 million people. Every political party has, to some extent, thieves, thugs, criminals, extortionists, looters, and killers among its ranks. The problem is that whenever one side wins a political struggle, that side considers all of its own people to be pure and blameless, while viewing the defeated side as the root cause of all problems.
This pattern has continued since the birth of Bangladesh. As a result, a culture of “political reconciliation” has never been established. History has repeatedly given us opportunities. As a nation, we have squandered those opportunities through our own foolishness, vindictiveness, or ulterior motives. How long will this continue?
* Mohiuddin Ahmad is a writer and researcher
* The views expressed here are those of the author.
* This article appeared in Prothom Alo print and online and has been translated by Ayesha Kabir for Prothom Alo English Online