Tug of war on elections: How to set the commoners’ agenda

In the midst of a tug of war on the date of the next general elections, the nation has found no scope for discussing what the masses are expecting from their future representatives and the elected government.

Also outside the realm of politics, the mass media, the intellectual community, rights workers and the civil society are yet to prepare any charter of demands or at least a list of expectations of today’s voters or of what kind steps should be taken to ensure their collective welfare.

Although there are still debates even after the announcement of the election date within the second week of April 2026, by Chief Adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus in his address to the nation in the evening of 6 June, the nation is going to be bound for the elections. Accordingly, the parties and other stakeholders may soon be seen busy preparing their strategy for connecting to the people.

In democratic countries, politicians take some initiatives or accomplish some jobs to win the heart of the voters and thus the electoral race. For instance, they offer solutions to national and local problems, try to help the helpless or even pretend to do good to people, find out flaws and weaknesses of the rival candidates and parties and sometimes use violent rhetoric to outsmart others. They make all efforts to present themselves to the electorates as the likeable candidates.

The elections Bangladesh is expected to see are going to be held in a completely new atmosphere. At the one one, there is a priority to trying the culprits responsible for mass murder, massive corruption and some other serious crimes and carrying out reforms to rebuild the state institutions destroyed during the fascist rule; there should also be reflections of the popular hopes and aspirations that have been created out of the July-August 2024 uprising, on the other. Such aspirations have created challenges that need to be dealt with in times of the elections.

No matter how far the government makes endeavours to build a consensus through dialogue and what kind of strategies the political parties define and use to secure votes, the issues of the common people may remain neglected unless there are open discussions on their problems and demand and favourable public opinions are made.

The issues that may generate the commoners’ interests ahead of the elections include: creation of opportunities for flourishing of young talents and attaining success, and securing good jobs and promoting entrepreneurship, bringing and keeping price stability to help people lead a decent life, putting an end to the regime of bribery and extortion, and of terrorism and intimidation, ensuring atmosphere for all to get justice, providing quality education and healthcare services, addressing hassles of movement of people on city streets, roads and highways, making cities liveable, protecting arable land and natural environment, removing barriers to citizens’ rights and formulating homegrown public policies free from external pressure.

Unless these issues are given due attention during the elections, the critical issues of public life shall remain neglected and the elections would only mean change in power from one hand to another.

Some candidates of Member of Parliament (MP) may wonder whether there is any correlation between discussions on and commitment to public interest issues such as creation of jobs, education, environment and justice, greater national integration and consensus building and receipt of votes on the ground. Because, after all, s/he shall have to secure party nomination in the first place making ‘due diligence’, and run an expensive campaign in her/his constituency. S/he may think if most of the people in that constituency vote for her/him for whatever reasons, be it party support, personal reputation or influence, why s/he should bother about bigger national issues. Who will stop her/him from winning the elections?

Thus, if a political party somehow manages to secure support of just 151 MPs out of 300 seats in parliament overall, there is no obstacle to forming the government. In Westminster (parliamentary) style government, the prime minister as head of the government does not need to overcome the test of popularity unlike what an elected president has to do.

In multi-party electoral system, why would a political party make promises of public welfare programmes through election manifesto if there is scope for proving a day’s popularity and majority in parliament even by using any means?

We’ve no knowledge of offering instant answers to such questions, because there had been no opportunity, no atmosphere for applying voting rights of people in the past one and a half decades, so it cannot be said with certainty in advance how the voters would behave this time around. We have hardly any idea of how the new generations who have become grown-up citizens after the 2001 parliamentary polls, would react to the upcoming elections.

Let’s suppose, a candidate or a party feels that there is no need to announce certain manifesto or make a set of promises to win the elections, will the common people especially the ones of new generation, vote for that individual candidate or party without any public expectation or assurance from the candidate/s? If you or your party then join the government, will the opposition not raise the issues of public interest for the sake of their own political gains?

As a nation deserves its leadership, the pre-polls atmosphere indicates what kind of elections – good or bad – the country is going to hold. Vote means not just voting day affair but also quality of candidates nominated, how the people participate in, what kind of campaigns are run, how the process of voting is and finally the qualifications of the public representatives to be elected. Fair elections involve the entire process.

Before the 1991 elections held after the popular upheaval of 1990, the two main contenders for power -- the BNP and the Awami League -- had to swallow the pressure of the people’s aspirations and the guidelines prepared by three political alliances inclusive of themselves. That was one of the fairest elections in the country’s history and the Jatiya Sangsad formed proved to be vibrant.

We have negative examples as well. Before the 2018 parliamentary polls, we had witnessed that the campaign music of the Awami League-led alliance was so disturbing that the voters received their message that they should not go to the polling stations. They actually did not need to go to vote since the ballot boxes were filled the night before the election day.

In order to hold a far better election this time around, both the interim government and the political actors should come to an agreement (consensus) on broader national issues.

Still, any assumption that an arrangement that is made ignoring the aspirations of the electorates would be sustainable, is similar to the defeated thinking of the fallen ruler, Sheikh Hasina.

Despite the fact that the reform programmes undertaken by the Yunus government bear the people’s aspirations that may not be translated into reality unless they are inserted into the manifesto or plan of action of the political parties.

There is no guarantee either that bypassing of public expectations would bring good results finally, because, on the voting day in a democracy, or in the situation like that of 5 August 2024, it is the people who emerge as the deciding player in the course of history.

In his address to the nation, Professor Yunus asked the people to secure commitment of the political parties and candidates to important national agenda.

As he said, "You will obtain a commitment from them that they will govern the country with complete honesty and transparency, and will fully refrain from all forms of corruption, partisanship, tender manipulation, syndication, extortion, terrorist activities, and other actions defying public interest"

However, there is no arrangement in our country – neither in a political party nor even in the government – to receive/judge opinions and views of the people directly or indirectly.

In fact, in the West’s representative democracy, too, the people themselves do not and cannot govern, rather a group of people rule the country in the name of the people, on behalf of the people.

That is why, the public representatives have to embrace democratic culture for becoming good rulers or efficient managers of the state affairs. They have to bear the load of the people as hobby but actually for altruistic purposes. In today’s Bangladesh, that responsibility is the compliance with reforms and consensus and political agenda of the masses.

The country’s entire population shall not come to the public meeting venue of Paltan Maidan (ground) or join social media live session to say that these are their 100-point charter of demands, although they have their own aspirations.

If a political party wants, it can visit the people from door to door to listen to them, list their expectations and try to offer programmes for their welfare. The elections to be held in 2026 have provided them with the opportunity to make some sublime accomplishments.

When the first anniversary of the July-August revolution will be observed soon, the government, political parties and other stakeholders can reach the people, hold dialogue with them. Thus they will be able to know in advance the expectations of the people about the post-election tasks and programmes.

In a new Bangladesh context, we should remind ourselves that it is the responsibility of any pro-people political party to go to the doorstep of the people with promise of welfare, properly understanding national issues and public opinion itself, not to give lecture more often than not.

* Khawaza Main Uddin is a journalist. He can be reached at khawaza@gmail.com.