Presidents come and go. One board leaves and another takes its place. Yet controversy surrounding elections to the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) remains a constant.
Whether the president is a political appointee, a government-backed figure or a former cricketer, none has succeeded in delivering a transparent election free from political influence.
Regardless of who is in charge during an election—whether an elected president or the head of an ad hoc committee—the process appears destined to follow the same familiar pattern: irregularities, controversy and the marginalisation of opponents through the exercise of power.
The much-discussed 7 June election seems to be heading down the same path.
Since the election schedule was announced on 16 May, one stage after another has been completed, bringing the process to the threshold of the ballot box. Like its predecessors, this election has attracted criticism at virtually every step. Bangladesh cricket appears unable to escape the embarrassing practice of securing positions in the board at any cost.
The ad hoc committee headed by former national team captain Tamim Iqbal was entrusted with organising a neutral and transparent election. Those hopes have largely evaporated. Seven of the committee’s 11 members, including Tamim himself, are contesting the election.
Although there may be no constitutional obstacle to their participation, the ethical questions are unavoidable.
The committee has insisted that there is no risk of the election being influenced because the process is being administered by an election commission. That argument sounds familiar. Similar assurances were offered by former BCB president Aminul Islam and his associates before the previous election, which was also overseen by an election commission.
The outcome of that election—and the allegations of a lack of transparency that led Tamim and his allies to boycott it—is something they know better than anyone.
From the outset, the current committee has acquired a distinctive label, one that may become even more relevant during the upcoming election.
Tamim's interim board has been nicknamed the “Father’s Blessing Cricket Board” after several offspring of cabinet members of the incumbent government were appointed despite lacking significant organisational experience.
The phrase was first used sarcastically by a member of parliament during a parliamentary session before quickly entering public discourse.
For candidates contesting the 7 June election under this committee, there appears to be no shortage of similar blessings—whether from fathers, brothers, uncles or ministers. Taken together, nearly one-third of the candidates appear to owe their positions to such patronage.
Many are relatives of ministers or MPs from the ruling party, while others have political identities of their own. A closer look at the list of 184 councillors and voters reveals many more such examples.
As a result, the upcoming BCB election has once again become largely non-competitive.
Ten directors will be elected from Category 1, which comprises district and divisional sports associations. Seven have already been elected unopposed. Elections will be held only for two seats from Khulna and one from Barishal, and even those contests may prove largely symbolic.
The sole director’s position in Category 3, representing various organisations and universities, has also been filled unopposed.
Following the withdrawal of two candidates, the number of contestants in Category 2, which represents Dhaka-based clubs, has fallen from 18 to 16. Twelve directors will be elected from this category.
Several candidates are already regarded as virtually certain to secure victory due to the “election mechanism”. There are also allegations that pressure has been exerted from influential quarters regarding who should be elected and who should be excluded.
According to sources, several meetings have been held between influential candidates and representatives of the government’s side. Yet candidates who feel disadvantaged rarely speak publicly about these matters—whether out of fear or in the hope of securing other benefits in the future by sacrificing a board position today.
Whenever concerns are raised about political influence in this election, defenders of the process point out that many individuals with political affiliations have previously entered the cricket board.
That is true. But that does not make it right.
Indeed, one of the reasons Tamim’s ad hoc committee was entrusted with responsibility was to move away from precisely that culture and deliver a politically neutral election. When the same committee effectively places the election back within the sphere of political influence, criticism is inevitable.
Given the backgrounds of many candidates, this election may even earn the distinction of being the most controversial in Bangladesh cricket history.
There is also an important difference between the present situation and the past.
Many politically affiliated directors who previously entered the BCB had substantial reputations and experience as sports organisers. Most clubs in Bangladesh have some form of political affiliation, as do district and divisional sports associations. Therefore, it is not unusual for organisers emerging from these structures to have political connections.
However, their identities as sports organisers generally took precedence over their political affiliations.
There is certainly no shortage of capable sports organisers associated with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). Yet many of them appear to have been excluded from this election. Perhaps, as some would suggest, they simply lack the necessary blessings.
In any sports federation election, a candidate’s identity as a sports organiser should come first. Political affiliation, if relevant at all, should be secondary.
In this election, however, the reverse often appears to be true.
Without the backing or patronage of influential figures, many candidates would arguably not even have become BCB councillors, let alone director candidates.
From the nomination of district and divisional councillors to the selection of directors from sports associations and clubs, much appears to have been predetermined.
In many districts, even members of ad hoc committees reportedly did not know which names district administrators—who serve ex officio as presidents of district sports associations—had submitted to the BCB as councillors.
Adding to the concerns are the same suspicions surrounding electronic voting that have surfaced in previous elections.
This raises an obvious question: what exactly has changed?
If an ad hoc committee cannot ensure neutrality and transparency, where is the promised reform?
Given the current circumstances, the one-sided nature of the 7 June BCB election may be enough to expose as hollow the slogan of depoliticising sports administration in Bangladesh.