.svg)
Public concern has grown over the transparency of the recently held national election. In the aftermath of the election, several defeated candidates filed petitions, prompting the High Court to order the seizure of result sheets from more than ten parliamentary constituencies. As a result, questions have emerged among the public regarding the fairness and neutrality of the election. Was the vote truly free and fair, or has the electoral process been turned into a pathway for political power? If elections are organized merely as a means to secure authority while disregarding the will of the people, then can such a process truly be called an election, or is it simply the misuse of a democratic mechanism as a ladder to power? This article examines the nature of Bangladesh’s electoral system and its prevailing political practices.
Politics, Interests, and Conflict
People generally engage in politics for two broad reasons: ideological commitment and economic interest. While political parties may initially emerge from ideological motivations, both intra-party and inter-party conflicts often revolve around the distribution of economic benefits and access to state resources.
Conflicts among competing political actors can be resolved through dialogue and negotiation. However, they may also be managed through intimidation, coercion, or even direct violence. Throughout history, political actors have adopted different strategies to secure their interests depending on the institutional environment in which they operate.
In the era of modern nation-states, ballots are generally considered more powerful than bullets. Dialogue is emphasized as the preferred method for resolving conflicts arising from competing interests. Controlling the authoritative distribution of resources often requires access to executive power within public offices, while legislative authority can influence resource control by creating favorable laws. Elections serve as the principal mechanism through which legislative bodies and local public offices are filled.
Within democratic frameworks, elections are regarded as a fundamental value. Through elections, democratic countries determine their central and local governments and shape the future direction of the state. Voting also provides citizens with a means of indirectly holding candidates accountable, expressing opinions on government policies, and communicating their preferences regarding political leadership. Moreover, elections play a broader role in shaping political culture by ensuring the space for freedom of expression, safeguarding political rights, and reinforcing the overall framework of civil liberties.
Electoral Manipulation
The presence or absence of democracy in a country cannot be measured on a simple binary scale. For instance, democracy exists in the United Kingdom, the United States, and India. Although these statements are technically correct, they do not represent identical political realities. Similarly, statements such as “Uganda has no democracy,” “North Korea has no democracy,” and “Saudi Arabia has no democracy” also fail to capture the differing political structures and cultures within these states.
For this reason, democracy is often evaluated on a scale rather than a binary measure, sometimes ranging from 0 to 1, or from 0 to 100. Countries that fall somewhere in the middle of this spectrum, particularly those that experienced democratization after the Cold War and developed hybrid governance systems, frequently witness electoral manipulation aimed at controlling public offices and legislative bodies.
Electoral manipulation generally occurs in three ways. Political actors may alter results through direct vote theft, manipulate institutional mechanisms that administer elections, or influence the broader electoral playing field. Observers argue that elements of each of these practices were evident during Bangladesh’s recent election.
Vote Theft
Electoral fraud is almost as old as elections themselves. One commonly used method is casting votes on behalf of deceased individuals or voters who are absent on election day. In such cases, individuals are organized to impersonate these voters.
Other forms of electoral malpractice include intimidating voters, buying votes with money, spreading misinformation, and coercing voters to support a particular candidate. In many developing countries, armed groups may seize polling centers, detain election officials, or stuff ballot boxes. Ballot snatching, incorrect vote recording, and deliberate destruction of ballots are also reported practices.
Political scientist James C. Scott describes similar dynamics within “machine politics,” where local power brokers or “godfathers” compel entire communities under their influence to vote for a specific candidate. In return, citizens receive benefits not from the state but from these power brokers. If the godfather’s control is not absolute, only loyal supporters are allowed to approach the polling station, while others are prevented from voting through various means. Such practices were historically observed in early twentieth-century Chicago and are now often associated with certain developing political systems.
Institutional Manipulation
In contemporary politics, electoral manipulation often begins long before election day. Political parties seeking to secure power increasingly attempt to influence institutional processes over several years leading up to the election—and sometimes even afterward.
This process usually unfolds in three stages. First, the government consolidates control over state institutions by appointing loyal individuals to key positions. These officials, in turn, demonstrate political loyalty by protecting the interests of the ruling party. In this phase, practices such as court-packing may occur, potentially weakening the independence of the judiciary.
In the second stage, opposition forces are targeted. Opposition leaders may face political marginalization, legal pressure, or criminal charges that critics sometimes describe as politically motivated. During this stage, sections of the media and intellectual community may also contribute to narratives that justify actions taken against opposition groups.
In the third stage, constitutional provisions, electoral laws, or institutional rules may be altered in ways that consolidate the ruling party’s dominance. Once these stages are completed, elections are organized within a political environment where the state apparatus effectively works in favor of the ruling power.
Manipulating the Electoral Playing Field
Electoral outcomes can also be influenced by shaping the broader political environment. Laws, regulations, and institutional arrangements may be adjusted to provide advantages to certain candidates while creating obstacles for others. In many political systems, party leadership ultimately decides nominations for candidates, even when formal democratic procedures exist within party structures.
As a result, popular candidates sometimes fail to receive nominations due to internal party dynamics or political patronage networks. In other cases, nominations become associated with financial transactions or political bargaining, limiting genuine representation of public opinion.
Electoral Conflict
Elections determine who will control legislative authority, state power, and public resources for the coming years. As a result, political tensions often intensify before and after elections. When incumbent governments or powerful political actors are directly involved in the contest, the likelihood and severity of conflict can increase.
While election-related violence may rise in the short term, credible and fair elections often reduce conflict in the long run. However, manipulated elections can create cycles of violence that persist over time.
When electoral fraud occurs, such as ballot theft or the seizure of polling stations, the groups responsible often rely on coercion and conflict to secure their influence. Those who suffer from such actions may later seek retaliation, creating a repeating cycle of confrontation.
This cycle of electoral conflict generally unfolds in three stages. First, disputes and tensions arise over the electoral process or results. Second, these tensions erupt into open conflict, which may sometimes involve armed confrontation and casualties. Third, both sides temporarily withdraw before one group regains strength and reignites tensions.
Is Election Still Necessary?
Elections often intensify political competition and can lead to violence, particularly in polarized societies. Political elites sometimes use conflict strategically to influence voter turnout or public perception. Once violence becomes embedded in electoral culture, it can perpetuate cycles of confrontation.
In such circumstances, ordinary voters may begin to question whether politics would be more peaceful without elections. Observing recurring electoral violence and manipulation, many may wonder: Is the election becoming a curse rather than a democratic instrument? Is it still necessary?
--
Author: Sajon Mia
Bangladeshi journalist based in the United Kingdom.
N:B: The opinion of the columnist is solely his own.
