I had the opportunity to observe around 15 polling centres on election day, beginning early in Dhaka-14 before polling officially started at 7:30am. By 7:15am, nearly 200 voters were already waiting in a queue outside which grew to about 300 within 45 minutes—it was quite striking to notice.
What stood out immediately was the peaceful atmosphere. Voters were casting their ballots themselves, freely and without interference. I also noticed an exceptionally heavy presence of security forces, more than I had ever seen at polling centres during previous elections. It was a strong and coordinated deployment.
Later, I visited several centres in Dhaka-13 where voters’ presence was comparatively low, still significant, and voting looked peaceful and orderly. In some polling centres, I observed two voting booths. Since there were two ballots this time—one for the candidates and another for the referendum—the arrangement helped ensure voting was completed within the stipulated time. Furthermore, the entire process—voter identification, the application of indelible ink, and the issuance of ballot papers—was carried out properly by the temporary polling officials. I did not witness any irregularities.
Although there had been widespread rumours that violence would erupt and that law and order would deteriorate on election day, what we observed on the ground told a different story. In my opinion, this election witnessed a remarkable presence of law enforcement agencies—unlike any other in Bangladesh’s history. The Bangladesh Army, which was given magistracy power, played a crucial role in building public confidence. In previous elections, the military had sometimes been deployed with such authority, but that changed before the 2014 election. Later, the Election Reform Commission recommended restoring magistracy power to the armed forces during elections, which was accepted. The army’s patrols of constituencies and visible presence offered reassurance, since in Bangladesh, people still place considerable trust in the military as an institution. Their involvement helped counter the rumours and eased anxieties.
While there were some isolated incidents of violence and intimidation, those did not impact the overall outcome. People were mostly able to cast their ballots independently. Taken together, this was a peaceful and credible election.
Of course, voter turnout—59.44 percent—has been lower compared to some past elections, particularly the 2008 election, which was 87.13 percent. However, there were two major challenges this time. First, in Bangladesh, major political parties have established vote banks. Many voters affiliated with a party are unlikely to vote outside that party line. It appears that a portion of the Awami League’s traditional vote bank did not turn up this time. That naturally affected turnout.
Second, the persistent rumours about possible violence not only discouraged some voters from going to polling centres, but also created genuine fear among segments of the electorate. Had those rumours not existed, turnout might have been higher.
Still, voter turnout of around 60 percent in Bangladesh cannot be used to raise questions about election credibility. It is because voter turnout, even in the 1991 election—one of the widely considered free and fair polls in the country’s history—was about 55 percent. Moreover, the turnout this time is within an internationally acceptable range.
Regarding the allegations of improper vote counting, I did not see any lack of transparency when I personally observed the counting process in some centres. My colleagues who monitored other centres shared similar feedback. Counting took place in the presence of observers, polling agents, and journalists. Transparency was ensured.
Unfortunately, in our political culture, even a good election is often followed by allegations. Many of these are political statements rather than substantiated claims. That said, any complaint must be investigated. One of the key features of a credible election is that grievances are formally examined and findings are communicated to the public.
Encouragingly, we have seen instances where candidates have accepted results and congratulated winners. Such gestures contribute to democratic maturity.
Although some people have described this as the best election in our history, I would take a slightly more measured position. This was one of the best elections in Bangladesh’s history, given the adverse conditions, the climate of uncertainty, and the fears of violence. However, we cannot be complacent. This election should be seen as a starting point, the beginning of institutionalising the electoral process in Bangladesh. We must identify shortcomings, define areas for improvement, and learn from them. The Election Reform Commission proposed around 250 recommendations. Some of these have been incorporated into revised laws, but many remain unaddressed. The task now is to carry forward those reforms and begin preparing for the next election from today.
Dr Md Abdul Alim is an elections specialist, currently working as principal director with Democracy International, and previously served as director of the Election Working Group.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
