Bangladesh Defense
Saif
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2024
- Messages
- 17,195
- Likes
- 8,259
- Nation
- Residence
- Axis Group
Electoral Process: From manipulation to transparency
NATIONAL elections play a pivotal role in shaping the political, economic, and social direction of a country, serving as the cornerstone of democracy and the foundation for governance, stability and public accountability. They empower citizens to exercise their right to vote, enabling the...
www.newagebd.net
Electoral Process: From manipulation to transparency
Md Motiar Rahman 19 December, 2024, 00:00
New Age/Mehedi Haque
NATIONAL elections play a pivotal role in shaping the political, economic, and social direction of a country, serving as the cornerstone of democracy and the foundation for governance, stability and public accountability. They empower citizens to exercise their right to vote, enabling the collective voice of the populace to determine leadership and policies while ensuring accountability and legitimacy in the government. By fostering a sense of collective responsibility, elections encourage active civic engagement, making governments responsive to the needs and aspirations of the people. They also provide a peaceful mechanism for transferring power, promoting stability, trust in political institutions and a commitment to democratic values and inclusive governance.
Furthermore, elections serve as a platform for addressing pressing national issues, debating future policies and shaping the nation’s priorities and future. Ultimately, they reflect the sovereignty of the people, the health of democratic tradition and a country’s dedication to a vibrant, inclusive society. However, election through the manipulation, engineering or strategic design of electoral processes, systems or outcomes to favour a particular candidate, party or group destroys the people’s aspirations in the electoral process.
The Election Commission is responsible for organising and conducting free, fair and transparent elections. It operates as an independent constitutional body, ensuring impartiality in managing electoral processes. The commission oversees the preparation and revision of the electoral roll, the delimitation of constituencies and the enforcement of the electoral code of conduct. It coordinates with various government agencies, including the police and civil administration, to ensure security and logistical support during elections. Voting is conducted through secret ballots, with polling stations set up nationwide, monitored by election officials and observers to prevent irregularities. The Election Commission also addresses complaints and disputes related to the election process, reinforcing its commitment to upholding democratic principles.
Public trust in the Election Commission has eroded significantly, driven by a widespread perception of its alignment with ruling party interests in previous elections. It has been widely viewed as a subordinate entity to the ruling party, functioning as its tool rather than an impartial and independent body. The national elections during the previous regime were plagued by controversies, ranging from unopposed parliamentary appointment to the widespread accusation of ballot box tampering. The 2014 ‘uncontested elections’ were marred by opposition boycotts, the 2018 ‘midnight elections’ drew allegations of pre-poll vote rigging and the 2024 ‘dummy elections’ saw near-total dominance by ruling party candidates. These practices, coupled with the systematic suppression of opposition parties, created an enduring legacy of mistrust. In this context, the interim government committed to facilitating transparent and inclusive elections, emphasising the importance of these reforms to safeguard democratic principles. A commission was formed to reform the election commission.
By this time, a new election commission was formed by the interim government amid rising public demand for voting rights, marking a critical moment in Bangladesh’s democratic journey. The forthcoming national elections, the first under a non-partisan interim government since 2008, offer a unique opportunity to restore public trust and reset the democratic process. By removing the government’s influence over administration, law enforcement and election officials, the interim government has created a level playing field. Through transparency, impartiality and accountability, the commission can rebuild confidence and ensure credible elections, laying a stronger foundation for democracy.
On the other hand, the election reforms commission has been working to overhaul the entire electoral system. As part of this effort, the reform committee convened a meeting with administrative officials to gather insights from stakeholders and organisers involved in managing national and local government elections. During the discussions, officials attributed the irregularities observed in the contentious 2014, 2018 and 2024 elections to law enforcement, particularly the police, citing their tendency to disregard field-level administrative directives in favour of instructions from the headquarters.
This is an alarming revelation by the civil service officers who play a pivotal role in the free and fair national elections under the supervision of the Election Commission. Elections are conducted by a range of officials trained and empowered to uphold electoral laws and ensure fairness and transparency. Key officers include returning officers, typically senior civil servants such as deputy commissioners, who oversee election activities in their constituencies, supported by assistant returning officers in managing polling activities and logistics. Presiding officers, appointed under the authority of returning officers and assistant returning officers, are assigned to individual polling stations to ensure smooth voting processes, with assistance from assistant presiding officers and polling officers, who handle tasks such as verifying voter identities, issuing ballot papers and guiding voters. These officials collectively manage, supervise and oversee all pre-election, mid-election, and post-election activities, ensuring a proper control and monitoring within polling centres.
The police play a crucial role in ensuring election security by maintaining law and order, safeguarding polling stations, preventing violence and fraud and upholding electoral laws. On the election day, their presence is essential for maintaining peace, protecting individuals and property and ensuring a smooth transition of power to newly elected representatives. The effectiveness of the police is critical in fostering voter confidence and supporting a fair democratic process, particularly in a politically charged environment. During elections, the police are deployed alongside members of the Ansar and Village Defence Party and, when necessary, personnel from the armed forces, all working collectively to enforce the law. Their responsibilities strictly exclude facilitating, obstructing or engaging in electoral fraud or manipulation. Any deviation from these duties makes them liable to punishment under the electoral act.
Law enforcement experts contend that attributing sole blame to the police for election irregularities oversimplifies the issue, emphasising that the responsibility is shared with returning and presiding officers. While the police play a significant role in maintaining election security, holding them solely accountable is both unfair and misleading. Accusations of partisanship and defiance within the police force have raised questions about the effectiveness and responsibilities of election officials in managing and conducting the national elections. Claims that the police are entirely responsible for failing to meet public expectations in the past three national elections distort the truth and unfairly shift blame. While the police, along with other government employees, may have supported election manipulation, their role is strictly supplementary, not central. They lack direct knowledge of activities inside polling stations unless significant disorder occurs or election officials request their assistance as their presence is limited to maintaining order outside the polling stations, with no involvement in internal proceedings.
When the ruling party employs strategies to manipulate elections, their focus is primarily on the returning officers, not the police. This is because only returning officers and their close associates have the authority to alter election outcomes. For instance, in 2014, despite leaders of Hussain Muhammad Ershad’s Jatiya Party publicly declaring their intention to withdraw their candidacies, the returning officers refused to accept their withdrawal. In some cases, candidates were even declared elected without submitting nomination papers.
In the 2018 election, returning officers systematically disqualified the nomination papers of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and other opposition candidates on absurd grounds. This left BNP voters uncertain about their candidates even a week before the elections. Furthermore, the early disappearance of ballots under the returning officer’s custody remains a mystery. The situation was even more egregious in local government elections. In the Barishal City Corporation elections, some ruling party candidates were unable to cast their vote because of the shortage of ballot papers — an outcome of pre-stuffed ballot boxes orchestrated with the cooperation of the returning officers before the voting even started.
If the alarming claim that the police were solely responsible for election engineering in the past three elections is accepted, it raises the question: why was no appropriate legal action taken? Other security forces, operating under the supervision of the executive magistrate, could have intervened and taken immediate legal or punitive measures against those responsible, including the police. Additionally, the police at the subordinate level, along with a limited number of Ansars and VDP personnel, both armed and unarmed, are typically deployed to maintain law and order at election centres. They lack the authority to overpower presiding officers or defy their orders. It is widely acknowledged that elections, national or local, require a coordinated effort and shared responsibility, as they are inherently a team endeavour.
Putting the blame solely on the police while others attempt to portray themselves as uninvolved in election manipulation is neither fair nor credible. Instead, it must be acknowledged that the entire state apparatus has been complicit in this flawed process of election engineering and manipulation over the past 16 years. An inquiry commission should be established to thoroughly investigate the irregularities in national elections. The commission will examine allegations of police complicity and the incompetence or inertia of other organisations, assign accountability where necessary and ensure that election manipulation of this nature never recurs. This will strengthen the electoral process, restore public confidence and end election tampering. Officers from both law enforcement agencies and the civil administration are believed to have advanced their careers and achieved significant success under the previous regime. While some have since retired, others may still be in service. Based on the findings of a fair and transparent inquiry, appropriate legal actions — preferably formal complaints filed under relevant legal provisions — should be pursued.
It is strongly recommended that law enforcement and administrative officers should be placed under the supervision of the district judge, acting as the chief returning officer, during national elections. This approach draws inspiration and precedence from the 1970 elections under Pakistan’s military regime when the chief election commissioner Justice Abdus Sattar replaced deputy commissioners with district judges as returning officers to ensure impartiality — a decision that remains a historical benchmark for electoral integrity in the region. Building on this precedent, the interim government may consider placing officers of administration, law enforcement agencies and other paraphernalia under judicial supervision during elections, aiming to enhance accountability and minimize partisan interference.
It is to be noted that the Election Commission lacks members with direct law enforcement experience which may limit its ability to address complex security issues during, before and after the elections. While commissioners bring expertise from administration, judiciary and military backgrounds, none have first-hand knowledge of the police’s specific challenges, leaving the commission reliant on external advice. The inclusion of a retired police official could enhance the commission’s capacity to strategise election security, provided appointments are made impartially to avoid bias. By not including a retired police official, the commission may miss out on valuable insights into crowd management, intelligence gathering and strategies for countering electoral malpractices like voter intimidation or booth capturing. Moreover, effective coordination between the commission and the law enforcement agencies is crucial, along with transparent policies and accountability frameworks to ensure that law enforcement remains non-partisan and efficient.
The manipulation of electoral processes over the past decade highlights systemic flaws that undermine democracy. Restoring trust in elections requires a multi-pronged approach, including transparent inquiries, accountability for past irregularities and structural reforms in electoral oversight. By emphasising impartiality, ensuring accountability and placing critical administrative and law enforcement functions under judicial supervision, the nation can work towards safeguarding its democratic values and preventing future election engineering. The proposed reforms mark a pivotal moment to rebuild credibility in governance and reinforce public confidence in the electoral process.
Dr Md Motiar Rahman is a retired deputy inspector general of police.
Md Motiar Rahman 19 December, 2024, 00:00
New Age/Mehedi Haque
NATIONAL elections play a pivotal role in shaping the political, economic, and social direction of a country, serving as the cornerstone of democracy and the foundation for governance, stability and public accountability. They empower citizens to exercise their right to vote, enabling the collective voice of the populace to determine leadership and policies while ensuring accountability and legitimacy in the government. By fostering a sense of collective responsibility, elections encourage active civic engagement, making governments responsive to the needs and aspirations of the people. They also provide a peaceful mechanism for transferring power, promoting stability, trust in political institutions and a commitment to democratic values and inclusive governance.
Furthermore, elections serve as a platform for addressing pressing national issues, debating future policies and shaping the nation’s priorities and future. Ultimately, they reflect the sovereignty of the people, the health of democratic tradition and a country’s dedication to a vibrant, inclusive society. However, election through the manipulation, engineering or strategic design of electoral processes, systems or outcomes to favour a particular candidate, party or group destroys the people’s aspirations in the electoral process.
The Election Commission is responsible for organising and conducting free, fair and transparent elections. It operates as an independent constitutional body, ensuring impartiality in managing electoral processes. The commission oversees the preparation and revision of the electoral roll, the delimitation of constituencies and the enforcement of the electoral code of conduct. It coordinates with various government agencies, including the police and civil administration, to ensure security and logistical support during elections. Voting is conducted through secret ballots, with polling stations set up nationwide, monitored by election officials and observers to prevent irregularities. The Election Commission also addresses complaints and disputes related to the election process, reinforcing its commitment to upholding democratic principles.
Public trust in the Election Commission has eroded significantly, driven by a widespread perception of its alignment with ruling party interests in previous elections. It has been widely viewed as a subordinate entity to the ruling party, functioning as its tool rather than an impartial and independent body. The national elections during the previous regime were plagued by controversies, ranging from unopposed parliamentary appointment to the widespread accusation of ballot box tampering. The 2014 ‘uncontested elections’ were marred by opposition boycotts, the 2018 ‘midnight elections’ drew allegations of pre-poll vote rigging and the 2024 ‘dummy elections’ saw near-total dominance by ruling party candidates. These practices, coupled with the systematic suppression of opposition parties, created an enduring legacy of mistrust. In this context, the interim government committed to facilitating transparent and inclusive elections, emphasising the importance of these reforms to safeguard democratic principles. A commission was formed to reform the election commission.
By this time, a new election commission was formed by the interim government amid rising public demand for voting rights, marking a critical moment in Bangladesh’s democratic journey. The forthcoming national elections, the first under a non-partisan interim government since 2008, offer a unique opportunity to restore public trust and reset the democratic process. By removing the government’s influence over administration, law enforcement and election officials, the interim government has created a level playing field. Through transparency, impartiality and accountability, the commission can rebuild confidence and ensure credible elections, laying a stronger foundation for democracy.
On the other hand, the election reforms commission has been working to overhaul the entire electoral system. As part of this effort, the reform committee convened a meeting with administrative officials to gather insights from stakeholders and organisers involved in managing national and local government elections. During the discussions, officials attributed the irregularities observed in the contentious 2014, 2018 and 2024 elections to law enforcement, particularly the police, citing their tendency to disregard field-level administrative directives in favour of instructions from the headquarters.
This is an alarming revelation by the civil service officers who play a pivotal role in the free and fair national elections under the supervision of the Election Commission. Elections are conducted by a range of officials trained and empowered to uphold electoral laws and ensure fairness and transparency. Key officers include returning officers, typically senior civil servants such as deputy commissioners, who oversee election activities in their constituencies, supported by assistant returning officers in managing polling activities and logistics. Presiding officers, appointed under the authority of returning officers and assistant returning officers, are assigned to individual polling stations to ensure smooth voting processes, with assistance from assistant presiding officers and polling officers, who handle tasks such as verifying voter identities, issuing ballot papers and guiding voters. These officials collectively manage, supervise and oversee all pre-election, mid-election, and post-election activities, ensuring a proper control and monitoring within polling centres.
The police play a crucial role in ensuring election security by maintaining law and order, safeguarding polling stations, preventing violence and fraud and upholding electoral laws. On the election day, their presence is essential for maintaining peace, protecting individuals and property and ensuring a smooth transition of power to newly elected representatives. The effectiveness of the police is critical in fostering voter confidence and supporting a fair democratic process, particularly in a politically charged environment. During elections, the police are deployed alongside members of the Ansar and Village Defence Party and, when necessary, personnel from the armed forces, all working collectively to enforce the law. Their responsibilities strictly exclude facilitating, obstructing or engaging in electoral fraud or manipulation. Any deviation from these duties makes them liable to punishment under the electoral act.
Law enforcement experts contend that attributing sole blame to the police for election irregularities oversimplifies the issue, emphasising that the responsibility is shared with returning and presiding officers. While the police play a significant role in maintaining election security, holding them solely accountable is both unfair and misleading. Accusations of partisanship and defiance within the police force have raised questions about the effectiveness and responsibilities of election officials in managing and conducting the national elections. Claims that the police are entirely responsible for failing to meet public expectations in the past three national elections distort the truth and unfairly shift blame. While the police, along with other government employees, may have supported election manipulation, their role is strictly supplementary, not central. They lack direct knowledge of activities inside polling stations unless significant disorder occurs or election officials request their assistance as their presence is limited to maintaining order outside the polling stations, with no involvement in internal proceedings.
When the ruling party employs strategies to manipulate elections, their focus is primarily on the returning officers, not the police. This is because only returning officers and their close associates have the authority to alter election outcomes. For instance, in 2014, despite leaders of Hussain Muhammad Ershad’s Jatiya Party publicly declaring their intention to withdraw their candidacies, the returning officers refused to accept their withdrawal. In some cases, candidates were even declared elected without submitting nomination papers.
In the 2018 election, returning officers systematically disqualified the nomination papers of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and other opposition candidates on absurd grounds. This left BNP voters uncertain about their candidates even a week before the elections. Furthermore, the early disappearance of ballots under the returning officer’s custody remains a mystery. The situation was even more egregious in local government elections. In the Barishal City Corporation elections, some ruling party candidates were unable to cast their vote because of the shortage of ballot papers — an outcome of pre-stuffed ballot boxes orchestrated with the cooperation of the returning officers before the voting even started.
If the alarming claim that the police were solely responsible for election engineering in the past three elections is accepted, it raises the question: why was no appropriate legal action taken? Other security forces, operating under the supervision of the executive magistrate, could have intervened and taken immediate legal or punitive measures against those responsible, including the police. Additionally, the police at the subordinate level, along with a limited number of Ansars and VDP personnel, both armed and unarmed, are typically deployed to maintain law and order at election centres. They lack the authority to overpower presiding officers or defy their orders. It is widely acknowledged that elections, national or local, require a coordinated effort and shared responsibility, as they are inherently a team endeavour.
Putting the blame solely on the police while others attempt to portray themselves as uninvolved in election manipulation is neither fair nor credible. Instead, it must be acknowledged that the entire state apparatus has been complicit in this flawed process of election engineering and manipulation over the past 16 years. An inquiry commission should be established to thoroughly investigate the irregularities in national elections. The commission will examine allegations of police complicity and the incompetence or inertia of other organisations, assign accountability where necessary and ensure that election manipulation of this nature never recurs. This will strengthen the electoral process, restore public confidence and end election tampering. Officers from both law enforcement agencies and the civil administration are believed to have advanced their careers and achieved significant success under the previous regime. While some have since retired, others may still be in service. Based on the findings of a fair and transparent inquiry, appropriate legal actions — preferably formal complaints filed under relevant legal provisions — should be pursued.
It is strongly recommended that law enforcement and administrative officers should be placed under the supervision of the district judge, acting as the chief returning officer, during national elections. This approach draws inspiration and precedence from the 1970 elections under Pakistan’s military regime when the chief election commissioner Justice Abdus Sattar replaced deputy commissioners with district judges as returning officers to ensure impartiality — a decision that remains a historical benchmark for electoral integrity in the region. Building on this precedent, the interim government may consider placing officers of administration, law enforcement agencies and other paraphernalia under judicial supervision during elections, aiming to enhance accountability and minimize partisan interference.
It is to be noted that the Election Commission lacks members with direct law enforcement experience which may limit its ability to address complex security issues during, before and after the elections. While commissioners bring expertise from administration, judiciary and military backgrounds, none have first-hand knowledge of the police’s specific challenges, leaving the commission reliant on external advice. The inclusion of a retired police official could enhance the commission’s capacity to strategise election security, provided appointments are made impartially to avoid bias. By not including a retired police official, the commission may miss out on valuable insights into crowd management, intelligence gathering and strategies for countering electoral malpractices like voter intimidation or booth capturing. Moreover, effective coordination between the commission and the law enforcement agencies is crucial, along with transparent policies and accountability frameworks to ensure that law enforcement remains non-partisan and efficient.
The manipulation of electoral processes over the past decade highlights systemic flaws that undermine democracy. Restoring trust in elections requires a multi-pronged approach, including transparent inquiries, accountability for past irregularities and structural reforms in electoral oversight. By emphasising impartiality, ensuring accountability and placing critical administrative and law enforcement functions under judicial supervision, the nation can work towards safeguarding its democratic values and preventing future election engineering. The proposed reforms mark a pivotal moment to rebuild credibility in governance and reinforce public confidence in the electoral process.
Dr Md Motiar Rahman is a retired deputy inspector general of police.
