It was common for multiple candidates from the same political party to compete for the same office. The candidate with greater influence, stronger organisational backing, or broader popular support would usually win. That was how the system functioned for many years. Then, for reasons of its own, the government of Sheikh Hasina changed the system by introducing a law requiring local government elections to be contested on a party basis. In support of the change, it argued that Bangladesh was not unique and that similar systems existed in a number of other countries.

The government cited the United Kingdom as an example. Fair enough, but did it also regard the UK as a model of democratic governance? There, when a party performs poorly in an election or loses, the parliamentary leader or party leader typically resigns, making way for new leadership. Do our political leaders follow that example? Not at all. Here, once someone reaches the top of a political party or the government, nothing short of death is likely to remove them from that position.

When a particular system works to their advantage, politicians eagerly embrace it. But when they find that it works against their interests or creates internal competition for leadership, they avoid it altogether. That is the essence of political opportunism.

In any case, there now appears to be broad political consensus that the next local government elections should be held on a non-partisan basis. All that remains is for the necessary legislation to be enacted. Against this backdrop, what is the rationale behind Jamaat-e-Islami's demand? If the elections are not to be contested on party lines, how can it be argued that members of a particular party should be excluded from the electoral process?