THE voting period for the 13th National Parliament election is now only hours away. Most political parties and candidates have put forward their pledges in their election manifestos. In Bangladesh, election day is traditionally very festive. This time, however, the occasion is overshadowed by the loss and sacrifices of the July 2024 uprising, transforming what is usually a festive moment into a solemn reminder of the price paid for the chance to reclaim our democratic right to vote. Voters of this election owe it to all who sacrificed their lives for reclaiming our right to franchise, and therefore there is an added responsibility to continue safeguarding the democratic process. That is why we must scrutinise these pledges in the manifesto, fuelled by the tide of populism without practical plans and containing a glaring mismatch in the words and actions of the pledge makers.
Illusion of fair election
AFTER seventeen years of waiting, the people of Bangladesh finally hope to see a truly competitive election. However, the reality remains grim, as the ‘instruments’ of election engineering used by the previous regime remain largely intact. We find ourselves still at the mercy of a corrupt bureaucracy, unreformed law enforcement agencies and power-hungry political factions. Despite the high hopes following the 2024 uprising, this transition toward a democratic system remains fragile. And it is evident that this election will suffer from systematic exclusion, as the interim government has failed to deliver the foundational reforms promised to the nation. For example, the systematic exclusion of political groups and independent candidates remains. The requirement of collecting one per cent of voter signatures, including all personal details, is still mandatory to submit to the Election Commission for any candidate who does not belong to a registered political party but wishes to contest. A BDT 50,000 deposit to the Election Commission is also compulsory, which stands as an active barrier amongst many. This undermines the principle of a level playing field between a poor but legitimate candidate and a wealthy yet corrupt one. The shameless exploitation of religious sentiment by political parties and many candidates—mobilising voters with promises of rewards in the afterlife to win an earthly election — continues. These are just a few examples that suggest this much-awaited election may be anything but ‘fair’.
Beyond the glossy promises
MOST of the available manifestos offer an abundance of pledges but fail to provide even a hint of how, over the next five years, they intend to overturn the administrative decay and fractured financial architecture required to fulfil such promises. Most parties speak of the ‘rule of law’ and ‘accountability’, yet why should the public believe them when these parties lack a history of practising inner-party democracy and a culture of accountability within their own ranks?
It would be far more convincing if parties explicitly pledged to bar corrupt individuals, extortionists, loan defaulters and criminals from membership. They should commit, in writing, to abandoning any member proven to be a culprit, even after they are elected. Yet, this simple but impactful element is visibly missing. The burning question remains: haven’t we seen a culture where corrupt individuals enter politics seeking a safe harbour and mainstream parties welcome them to bask in the warmth of their wealth? Is this not the very process by which a symbiotic relationship has developed over decades between corruption and the state?
When political parties talk about building a ‘trillion-dollar economy’ without establishing internal checks and balances, they are effectively announcing a massive opportunity for looting. As public spending surges, corrupt cells, party loyalists, and followers ready themselves for a feast. Public memory remains fresh with the scars of the previous administration, where billions of taxpayer dollars were syphoned off to benefit a narrow circle of friends, family and followers.
Without a mechanism for party self-regulation, why should the public believe that we aren’t entering another Orwellian era? A dystopia where lies are rebranded as truth, war as peace, and corruption as ‘speed money’. A reality where enforced disappearance becomes a tool to suppress public discourse and the marginalisation of women, indigenous groups, minority believers and non-believers becomes the new normal.
One wishes political parties were pragmatic enough to spare a few lines on self-reform. Until then, the common people remain without tools for accountability, left entirely at the mercy of parties regardless of whether they are in power or in opposition.
Silver lining
DESPITE the gross failure in earning the common people’s trust, a few citizen coalitions and independent candidates contesting this election have put forward pledges that are genuinely pro-people. These demands are achievable with minimum effort, provided the political will exists.
For instance, the Gonotantrik Odhikar Committee, a citizen coalition demanding political rights, has released a ‘Manifesto of the Common People’. Their demands strike at the heart of systemic accountability, which includes the demand for an independent review by relevant experts and local consensus for any development project before implementation which exceeds BDT 100 crore. They insist on a ban on party nominations for criminals, loan defaulters and dual-citizenship holders. To empower the electorate, they propose introducing the ‘No Vote’ option in case the voter doesn’t find any confidence to vote for any of the available candidates. More radically, they call for the automatic removal of the home minister should more than two instances of extrajudicial killings or enforced disappearances occur during their tenure, forming independent commissions to monitor the transparency of international bodies like the World Bank, Asian Development Bank and International Monetary Fund, and providing free health services and medicine in government hospitals. Even small, practical dignities are addressed in their demand list, such as installing free drinking water taps and public toilets every kilometre along busy roadsides.
Similarly, a platform advocating for safe agricultural practice and food has set forth a twenty-point demand list. These include a pension scheme for farmers, insurance protection against extreme weather events and a decentralised market system to ensure fair pricing by allowing farmers to trade directly. They also demanded a ban on herbicides, the prioritisation of local seed varieties, and a strict end to the dumping of industrial and urban waste onto agricultural land and other natural bodies.
These specific, actionable points offer a roadmap away from the vagueness typical of mainstream manifestos. The question, however, remains: do the major parties want to be this straightforward? Traditionally, they have found that vagueness secures them the monetary and ‘worldly’ benefits they crave. Nevertheless, there is hope. The rise of these pro-people and pro-ecology demands suggests that today’s silver lining could become tomorrow’s reality. Hope remains our lighthouse, and these demands, among many others, are our only tools to restore democracy in every sphere of the system.
This is surely not the first time we are seeing floods of golden promises and the spread of lavish hope before an election, promises that have crashed so badly in the past, resulting in the sixteen years of autocracy we faced from 2009 to 2024. Now, we see most political parties and candidates gathering around the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, predicting that if one forms the government, the other will be in opposition. Yet for decades, these two parties have supported, protected, and remained parasitic on one another whenever it suited them. It would therefore have been a positive step had they at least acknowledged their past failures in their manifestos and campaigns — failures that contributed to the erosion of democracy. Otherwise, how can we believe those who fear to accept the past but are excited to serve the nation in the future? Unfortunately, none of the mainstream political parties have offered even a token gesture to us as voters to restore our faith and trust.
In this situation, there is no way forward other than to be extra vigilant. From our individual and collective positions, we must discuss these issues in public discourse, engage in constructive debate and question power, all while keeping the glossy lines of the manifestos in mind.
Mowdud Rahman is a researcher and an engineer.
