DUCSU election, results, and what the youth wants

The DUCSU election has been the talk of the town for quite some time now. It is quite surprising that a university student union election can be the top news headline amidst the overall politics of a country. The number of voters in DUCSU is far less than that of even a single ward, yet it had drawn so much attention.

The election was held on Tuesday. I Many people, reportedly were to tense to sleep at night. I only came to know the results after waking up in the morning. Since I had no “obsession” with this election, it felt normal to me, like as any other news.

In the mornings I go for a walk, where I meet acquaintances for a chat and a cup of tea. Today, the main topic of conversation was the DUCSU election. Some people took it lightly, saying this is how it was supposed to be. But many others simply could not digest it, exclaiming, “What on earth just happened!"

I have been witnessing DUCSU elections since 1970. From what I have seen, the government’s affiliated organisations have never won in DUCSU. That does not mean the ruling party did not try to manipulate the elections.

The first direct election to DUCSU was held in 1970. That time it was a sweeping victory for the Chhatra League. In 1972, the Chhatra League split into two. In that gap, the pro-Moscow Chhatra Union won. Then, in 1973, the scene changed again. The most militant and talented section of students, under the banner of the JSD-backed, anti-Mujib faction of Chhatra League, fielded a panel in DUCSU. To counter them, the pro-Mujib Chhatra League and the pro-Moscow Chhatra Union formed a joint panel.

In the evening, as the vote count showed the JSD-backed Chhatra League’s rolling ahead, armed goons of the pro-Mujib joint forces intervened and disrupted the counting. But they did not stop there. They also attacked the rooms of opposition members or supporters in several halls, looted and vandalised. That very night, they broke the lock of Room 311 in Mohsin Hall and snatched away everything I had.

The ruling party and its allies would not accept the possibility of any opposition organisation winning the student union election. The Vice Chancellor Dr. Muzaffar Ahmad Chowdhury had no compunctions either and he was later was promoted. He became the Chairman of the University Grants Commission and then a minister.

After that, we saw that during the party-led governments of Zia and Ershad, whenever DUCSU elections were held, the government’s affiliated organisations never won. Then, later, the two “ladies of democracy” who had come to power, did not even allow DUCSU elections to take place.

A simple conclusion can be drawn here: young people tend to be anti-establishment. This is a global trend, and it is reflected in student union elections as well. Because one cannot win an election through hooliganism, governments have regularly prevented elections from happening.

After many years, this year DUCSU elections were held in a free environment. There has been some criticism. Some voices are proclaiming “we reject this.” Such clamour arises when people lose. We are somewhat familiar with "subtle" manipulations, "crude" manipulations, all sorts rigging. Between 1991 and 2001, we heard such narratives.

This time, the Islami Chhatra Shibir scored a major victory in DUCSU. It is an affiliate of Jamaat-e-Islami. One important aspect of public perception regarding Jamaat-Shibir is that they are pro-Pakistan and anti-Liberation War. Whose narrative is this? It is the narrative of those who were on the side of the Liberation War in 1971 and who consider that the war against Pakistan was a just one.

The point is, those who voted in the DUCSU elections were born long after 1971. They did not witness 1971, 1975 or 1990. They have only seen Sheikh Hasina’s governance and opposition to Khaleda Zia. From this experience, a certain mindset may have developed among young people that they do not support mainstream politics or its opposition—but does that automatically mean support for Chhatra Shibir? For the generation of 1971, this raises a huge question mark.

No matter what political propagandists promote in this country, we know that the two major pro-Liberation War parties are the Awami League and BNP, both of which have grassroots reach. Other parties are mostly personality-driven or are merely on paper. In 1971, Jamaat-e-Islami became politically isolated for supporting the Pakistani occupying forces. Its student organisation, Islami Chhatra Sangha, had effectively ceased to exist.

What is surprising is that, despite opposing the Liberation War, no party in this country was banned. What was banned was the use of religion in politics. Religious rhetoric in politics resumed in Bangladesh from 1973 onwards. By 1975, it gained further momentum. Towards the late 1970s, Jamaat-e-Islami was revived. During Ershad’s era, Awami League, BNP, Jamaat, and the leftist parties launched parallel movements. The first demand for elections under a caretaker government came from Jamaat, and everyone readily accepted that demand.

In the 1986 parliamentary elections, Jamaat, contesting alongside the Awami League, won 10 seats for the first time under its own symbol and entered parliament. This granted the party political and constitutional legitimacy. Jamaat members recognised Sheikh Hasina as the leader and sat on the opposition benches in parliament. In this way, the process of Jamaat’s rehabilitation began with the help of the Awami League.

In the 1991 parliamentary elections, Jamaat, in agreement with the BNP, won 17 seats. Using their written support, the BNP formed the government. Later, demanding elections under a caretaker government, Jamaat joined forces with the Awami League to launch movements against the BNP. In 2001, Jamaat allied with the BNP for elections and became part of the government, marking the completion of the party’s rehabilitation process. By 2025, while public grievances and anger over Jamaat’s role in 1971 persist, neither the Awami League nor the BNP holds a moral position to oppose them.

Islamic Chhatra Shibir, successor to the Pakistan Islami Chhatra Sangha, has been organising itself since the 1980s. Earlier, they had influenced student politics in several universities outside Dhaka. This is the first time they have taken the leading position at Dhaka University. Why this has happened is a question for young voters. Many seem unwilling to acknowledge how the influence of ideas trapped in the 1971 mindset of retired freedom fighters in their seventies has gradually diminished among the youth.

The national election will be held in five months. Some view the DUCSU election as a rehearsal for the national polls. Later this month, student union elections will be held at a few more universities. We will have to wait and see how much the DUCSU results influence them. If a pattern or trend emerges through university student union elections, it could potentially impact the national election.

Many factors and conditions come into play in a national election: the reach of organisations, funding, professionalism of campaigning, identifying popular candidates, candidates’ personal conduct and history, and inter-party relations, all are extremely important. If there is no sabotage from inside or outside, and if the national election is held under a truly neutral government, it is still too early to predict what the outcome will be. In the 1991 elections, we saw how misleading early forecasts can be.

One point must be kept in mind: most voters are young. They will not live their lives judged solely by what others did in the past. Political parties must consider what the youth want. The era of indoctrinating young minds through “cult worship” or personality cults is likely over.

* Mohiuddin Ahmad is a writer and researcher.
* The views expressed here are the author’s own.