THE much‑awaited general election in Bangladesh is just around the corner. After a long disruption of democratic norms, this election is more than a routine exercise. Naturally, it has generated an overflow of enthusiasm among people within and beyond Bangladesh. Let us hope that this positive air about the processes and outcomes of the election will be sustained.
Elections are like football or cricket matches: they demand a level-playing field. This ensures that every player and their team can participate freely without fear or intimidation. They deserve the opportunity to demonstrate their best performance — that is, to connect freely with their constituencies and have an audience for their agenda. It must be ensured that they maintain faith in the free and considered judgment of their electors, regardless of whether the result goes in their favour or not.
Elections are a game in another sense too. Like football or cricket, they should create uncertainty, unpredictability and suspense. The outcome should never be known before the game. People can hope that the party and candidate they support will win; however, this remains only a hope and cannot determine the result.
Of course, the vote of every individual counts. A single vote can make a big difference. However, people sometimes ignore this. This can be explained by referring to what is called the ‘tragedy of the commons,’ which applies to many areas of life. Election is a highly relevant field to understand how this ‘tragedy’ happens. A voter may think their single vote does not carry much weight and may therefore take it less seriously. They may also assume that others will behave differently. If everyone reasons in the same way, this can lead to undesirable outcomes — the tragedy.
Returning to the question of (un)predictability, many things today are, of course, predictable. For elections, opinion polls can offer early indications of outcomes. Similarly, the pulse of voters can sometimes be read based on what has happened — how parties behaved, whether they kept their promises or which party appears more promising in terms of governance. However, these remain indicators, not outcomes. Whether pollsters have predicted correctly is known only after the results are announced.
These days, people may also approach artificial intelligence to predict election results. I asked ChatGPT about the Bangladesh election, but I am not going to share its conclusion. You can try it yourself if you are interested.
It can’t be denied that the election next week is not truly inclusive. A major political player has been excluded. This may appear to be a continuation of what happened during the past autocratic regime. From one perspective, this is ironical, to say the least. The Awami League fully controlled the electoral field for over a decade and a half. They set the rules of the game. Based on those rules, only domesticated and loyal opposition parties could participate. These were elections only in name. Occasionally, they demonstrated what is colloquially called faka mathe goal deya — scoring in the absence of an opposing team. We remember that at least 153 parliament members were elected through this process in the 2014 general election.
That very rule‑making, unfair‑game‑playing Awami League is now out of the tournament. This is the result of their political arrogance, boasting and overreach. They used to say that the Hasinas never run away and that no foreseeable forces in the country could subjugate them.
Equally ironical is the role of India. This political godfather of the Awami League used to encourage the party to go ahead with unfair and one‑sided elections while stage‑managing other teams. The same India is now sheltering this political offspring and cannot do anything about its exclusion from the electoral process.
An election should be inclusive, no doubt, for its acceptability. However, inclusivity also depends on circumstances. The Awami League prevented other parties from participating in elections during their rule; this time, the Awami League has withdrawn on its own. The party and its leaders fled the country to save themselves.
Elections in Bangladesh are no less than carnivals. They are celebrated with fanfare and festivity, especially in rural and regional areas. Often, there are processions joined by tens of thousands of people. Candidates and their representatives beg for votes in marketplaces, workplaces and on the streets. People who are otherwise ignored throughout the year feel their importance to politicians during credible elections. They enjoy this moment of attention, which is an interpersonal manifestation of political representation — leaders connecting with those they aim to represent in parliament.
This carnivalesque character of elections was ruined by the Awami League government. Hasina used to claim frequently that she had established people’s right to vote. In reality, she deprived people of their democratic rights. More critically, she destroyed the sanctity of the process and turned it into a farce. Those elected through such farcical elections turned the parliament into a circus, where unthinkable things occurred during her tenure.
Although much of election campaigning, including public outreach, has moved to social media and digital spaces, some traditional practices remain intact. At the same time, there have been noteworthy innovations this year. One is the public financing of election costs for new and young political faces through transparent processes. We cannot say confidently that trading around elections — such as buying and selling nominations and behind‑the‑scenes deals — has been eliminated. However, the new avenue of managing election costs is a welcome development and a positive example in the political economy of elections.
The second innovation is the inclusion of expatriate Bangladeshis in voting. Almost half a million Bangladeshis living abroad have cast their votes through postal ballots. As expected, this has created awareness, interest and a sense of ownership among the diaspora. Depriving those who keep the economy running of the right to vote was unjustified. This has now been commendably rectified by the interim government.
Although rumours suggest that the election may not happen in the end, it has nonetheless enthused people greatly. One reason is that the election is being held under an interim government. The creation of this election‑time government was a political innovation for Bangladesh which was unfortunately dismantled by the Awami autocracy. People are genuinely excited about the return of this system. One can feel reasonably confident that the government will make every effort to present a credible election to Bangladeshis and the global community. It is also appreciable that the government has attempted to create a level playing field for all parties. Their interest is to ensure fairness, regardless of which parties win or lose.
We hope that our optimism will be maintained on February 12, 2026, and beyond, and that the results of the election will mark a new political beginning after more than 15 years of derailment.
Obaidul Hamid is an associate professor at the University of Queensland in Australia. He researches language, education and society in the developing world. He is a co‑editor of Current Issues in Language Planning.
