The date for the next national election has been set. According to the chief adviser, the much-anticipated 13th National Parliamentary Election will be held before the beginning of Ramadan in February 2026. The election commission has already started preparing, and the official schedule (election timetable) will be announced in due time. We’ll soon know the exact date, and then the countdown will begin.
Whenever an election approaches, political parties start heating up. Frenzied activities erupt on all sides—posters, banners, arches everywhere, deafening loudspeakers, processions with motorcades, public gatherings that block roads, fiery speeches from raised platforms, and desperate campaigning that transforms candidates into humble beggars at the voters’ doorsteps. All of this will go on for days. In our political culture, it seems the party that causes the most disruption to ordinary people is seen as the biggest and most powerful. Signs of this are already visible. However, many political actors are contradicting themselves and engaging in aggressive rhetoric.
Behind the scenes, another game plays out: negotiation. Smaller, weaker parties seek a share of power from the bigger ones, while the big parties offer limited “concessions” to neutralise the smaller ones. A "win-win" situation is created for both. In the end, it’s all a political game.
Meanwhile, the interim government's consensus commission has published a draft of proposed reforms. Not all political parties agree with all the proposals. Two strong viewpoints have emerged in political circles. One group believes the election should be held immediately without waiting for full consensus. The other insists there can be no election without reforms. They have gone further, declaring that an election without reforms will not be allowed to take place.
At first glance, there seems to be little hope for a peaceful resolution between these two positions. But in this country, anything is possible. Politicians adept at U-turns often change their stance at any moment, and they usually have justifications ready. For example: “In the greater interest of the nation, we’re accepting this for now,” or “We’re not power-hungry, but we don’t want a political vacuum,” or “For us, elections are just one phase of our broader movement,” and so on.
Those threatening to resist the election if their demands aren't met are already creating fear among the public. However, it’s also true that if the government is determined, it can go ahead with the election regardless of opposition or protest—as we’ve seen in 1988, 15 February, 1996, and in 2014. Since this is, on paper, a non-partisan government, it may be difficult to push through an election in the face of intense opposition.
Some political parties view others solely as rivals and are hurling aggressive, even venomous rhetoric at them. Many leaders are speaking without restraint, saying whatever they please. At times, it seems as though an actual war or civil strife could break out over the election. But will it really?
In my view, this kind of fiery rhetoric is a characteristic feature of our political culture. The closer the election gets, the louder and more intense the posturing becomes. It’s a classic pressure tactic—a traditional method of squeezing concessions by putting the opponent under pressure. Behind the scenes, another game plays out: negotiation. Smaller, weaker parties seek a share of power from the bigger ones, while the big parties offer limited “concessions” to neutralise the smaller ones. A "win-win" situation is created for both. In the end, it’s all a political game.
We often see that while political parties lash out at each other publicly with venomous rhetoric, behind the scenes they’re holding quiet meetings to divide up seats. As soon as a deal is struck, the fangs retreat. Former President General Ershad once said, “Opposition leaders spend all day insulting me, then meet me secretly at night to take money.” Much of how Ershad managed politicians is known — and much remains untold. Through business deals, bribes, or even honey traps, he managed to win over countless individuals. His model of political manipulation hasn’t lost its effectiveness.
In the midst of all this, the government has introduced two things: the July Declaration and the July Charter. Some say the next elected government will incorporate them into the constitution. Others argue that it will be up to the elected government to decide which parts to keep and which to discard. There’s already talk of discarding certain elements, as some parties have submitted notes of dissent on specific issues. If those parties form the next government, they won't be obligated to uphold the parts they previously objected to.
So where does that leave us? After all this movement, bloodshed, deaths, and destruction — does it all amount to nothing? Will the state not be reformed?
That covers the political parties. But this country has more than 170 million people, and around 120 million registered voters. Many of them have seen multiple elections. Bangladesh has held 12 national elections so far. ‘Elected’ governments have completed full terms six times — three of those through manipulation and force. So what assurance is there that the next election will be any more free and fair, or that the resulting government will be stable?
No election in Bangladesh has ever been completely free from controversy. The electoral system and the nature of political parties are such that there’s always room for doubt. And yet, some elections are described as good, others as flawed — largely based on the reports and opinions of foreign observers. Whether an election is considered credible or not often depends on what international observers say. The opinions of local observers carry little weight, as most of them operate using foreign funding. That in itself is far from honourable.
With every election, the same allegations arise — subtle rigging, blatant rigging, looting on the scale of ponds and oceans. When will we finally be free from all this? Until that day comes, we’ll keep talking about reform. We’ll keep demanding the election commission pass tougher laws. The army will be deployed to guard every polling station. We’ll take comfort thinking the monsters of electoral chaos are sealed in a bottle. But after the election, we’ll find the cork removed and all the monsters unleashed again. Then the protests will begin anew. And so the cycle continues.
But reform cannot be forced. It must come from within — from a genuine sense of necessity. It’s not enough for ordinary citizens to want it. Unless political parties themselves clean up their act, stop coercing voters, and refrain from ballot-stuffing or carrying off ballot boxes on election day, all these reforms will be in vain. Citizens are the ones who pay the price for this obsession with winning at any cost.
The reform proposals that have been put forward aim to establish a credible and sustainable electoral system — one that would lead to a responsible government. Holding another election without even minimal reform is meaningless. Those who are not genuinely interested in reform simply want to keep running the country under the old arrangements.
But reform cannot be forced. It must come from within — from a genuine sense of necessity. It’s not enough for ordinary citizens to want it. Unless political parties themselves clean up their act, stop coercing voters, and refrain from ballot-stuffing or carrying off ballot boxes on election day, all these reforms will be in vain. Citizens are the ones who pay the price for this obsession with winning at any cost.
During elections, political parties flex their muscles, clash violently with opponents, and cause bloodshed. Voters’ homes are burned down for the "crime" of not voting, women fall victim to sexual violence. Election-related violence is treated as a national security issue. As a result, the entire country is blanketed with security forces; thousands of vehicles and equipment are bought with taxpayers’ money; CCTV cameras are installed in every polling center.
How much longer must elections be held under such heavy surveillance?
*Mohiuddin Ahmad is a writer and researcher.
*The views expressed are of the writer's own.