SINCE the Election Commission announced in December 2025 the schedule for the parliamentary election, the political landscape has been overshadowed by a disturbing surge in violence, including the killing of political activists, leaders and those involved in party politics. Transparency International Bangladesh in its recent report said that at least 15 people involved in politics had been killed in the 36 days after the election schedule was announced, highlighting an urgent crisis that threatens both the integrity of the electoral process and the broader democratic fabric.
The deaths are not isolated incidents but symptoms of a deep malaise afflicting the political culture. The Transparency International report places this spate of killings in the context of political violence that has escalated dramatically over the past year and a half, during which 600 incidents of political violence were recorded and 158 political activists were killed and more than 7,000 injured. Within this broader landscape, the period immediately following the election announcement stands out as particularly fraught.
The announcements of election dates are meant to set the stage for peaceful political competition, public debate and voter mobilisation, but the reaction has been volatile. Political parties and activists have reported intimidation, harassment and fatal attacks, which have sparked fear among voters and participants alike. The Chief Adviser’s Office reported 274 incidents of violence, including five killings, in 45 days after the announcement of the election schedule, with many attacks directed at candidates or election-related operation. While numbers vary slightly between different compilations, the essential picture remains alarming. More than a dozen political figures have lost their lives in weeks, a toll that underscores the fragility of political order in the run-up to the polls.
This pattern of violence is not new, but it has intensified. The scale of political violence in 2025, with 102 deaths in 401 incidents, reflected a worsening trajectory well before the election calendar was set. Long-standing grievances, rivalries and internal tensions within political parties have been exacerbated by the transitional context, creating a volatile environment in which confrontations are frequent and often deadly.
Several factors contribute to this volatile climate. One is the proliferation of illegal weapons. Transparency International Bangladesh has warned that more than 1,300 firearms looted from police stations remain unrecovered and this cache of weapons, combined with the controversial issuing of new firearms licences to politically connected individuals, presents a clear danger. The presence of unregulated firearms in political clashes raises the stakes in conflicts that might, otherwise, have remained non-fatal.
Another underlying issue is the weak state of institutional reform. The organisation’s broader assessment of governance finds that core aspects of public administration and the rule of law remain unreformed and political bias within institutions, including the judiciary and the election administration, weakens the credibility of formal mechanism for conflict resolution. When official channels of accountability and dispute settlement are perceived as partial or ineffective, parties and factions often revert to extralegal means to protect interests or assert influence.
Additionally, internal factionalism and poor disciplinary control within political organisations can fuel violence. In the period analysed, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party was linked to more than 90 per cent of recorded political violence incidents, followed by smaller shares associated with the Awami League and the Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami. While figures differ across reports, the common theme is the prevalence of intra- and inter-party confrontations that spill over into public violence. These are not only clashes between rival party cadres but in some cases violent contests over control of local institutions, economic assets and organised structures previously dominated by entrenched interests.
Behind every figure is a life lost and a family devastated. The killing of political activists, whether at the hands of rival supporters, unidentified gunmen or in encounters that remain murky, contributes to a chilling effect on political participation. Potential candidates may be deterred from contesting, supporters may withdraw from campaigning and voters may feel unsafe in exercising their franchise. This corrosive atmosphere undermines the fundamental purpose of elections: to enable citizens to choose their representatives freely and without fear.
Moreover, the visibility of political killings reverberates beyond the immediate victims. It feeds narratives of impunity and insecurity, eroding public confidence in the state’s capacity to guarantee safety and order. When politically active citizens are killed in the lead-up to elections, the message conveyed is one of vulnerability rather than empowerment. This is especially consequential in a polarised environment where trust in state institutions is already strained.
The persistence of political killings in the run-up to elections seriously questions the electoral credibility and the ability of the state to ensure a level playing field. Reports highlight concerns about the neutrality of the field administration and the police, pointing to shortfalls in recruitment of security personnel designated for election duties. Only a small fraction of the human resources assigned to election responsibilities are police personnel, raising doubts about effective security coverage during campaigning and polling.
Compounding this are problems with electoral infrastructure such as the unsuitability of a large number of government primary schools as polling centres and administrative capacity gaps in verifying candidate affidavit information. These shortcomings signal that logistical and procedural aspects of the electoral process may be as vulnerable to disruption as are the political activities surrounding it.
The failure to recover looted weapons and the spectre of misinformation, now amplified by concerns about deepfakes and social media, further degrade the conditions for a peaceful electoral environment. In an age where information flows can intensify division and fear, these technological and security challenges compound physical risks.
Bangladesh has a long and often turbulent political history, marked by episodes of violence and of political assassination that have shaped public memory and institutional behaviour. Although not directly comparable to historical events such as the assassinations of key political figures in the 1970s, the past episodes contribute to a culture in which political contestation has sometimes spilt into bloodshed and where violent means have been used to settle political scores.
Today’s violence, while distinct in its contemporary context, nevertheless, evokes that legacy. The targeting of activists and leaders in the run-up to elections evokes fears of escalating cycles of retribution and loss. It also reflects a political culture in which power struggles are deeply entwined with personal and organisational survival.
The wider impact of political killings during an election period is profound. Democracy is not merely about the periodic casting of ballots. It is about the conditions in which citizens can engage freely in political life. When fear replaces debate, violence becomes a mechanism for influence and political participation carries personal risk, the very essence of democratic engagement is compromised.
The spiralling toll of political violence and the specific deaths recorded since the election schedule was announced signal a failure not just of law enforcement but of collective political will. Political leaders, civil society, the media and citizens alike have a stake in addressing the root causes of this violence. There is a moral imperative to stem the loss of life, restore accountability and reaffirm the norms of peaceful political competition.
Addressing political killings and electoral violence requires a multifaceted response. First, stronger accountability mechanisms must be established to investigate and prosecute politically motivated killings and related intimidation. Impunity only emboldens further violence and erodes public trust. Second, institutional reforms that strengthen the neutrality and capacity of electoral management bodies, law enforcement and the judiciary are critical to building confidence in the process.
Third, political parties must confront internal discipline issues and commit to non-violent contestation. Violence is often a product not only of rival factions but of lax controls and tacit toleration of armed contestation. Parties that wish to be seen as legitimate democratic actors must take responsibility for the conduct of their supporters and activists.
Finally, civil society and grass-roots movements have a crucial role in demanding transparency, safety and accountability. A vibrant civic space that can monitor, report and advocate against violence contributes to a political culture in which peaceful engagement is valued over confrontation.
The political killings since the election schedule was announced are a stark reminder that Bangladesh’s democratic journey remains fraught with challenges. The deaths of activists and political figures within a matter of weeks underline the urgency of confronting the culture of violence that has too often shaped political competition. Beyond the loss of individual lives, these killings threaten the legitimacy of the electoral process and risk disenfranchising voters and activists alike.
For democracy to flourish, political contests must be waged in arenas of ideas and ballots, not bullets and fear. The state, political parties and all citizens must work together to ensure that the forthcoming elections are not merely a procedural formality but a genuine expression of the people’s will, free from violence and intimidation. The true test of Bangladesh’s democratic aspirations lies not in the announcement of election dates but in creating a political environment where human life and civic freedom are protected and respected.
Musharraf Tansen, a former country representative of the Malala Fund, is a development analyst.
