When the Ballot Competes with the Baton

 

When the Ballot Competes with the Baton

Professor Dr. Md. Jafar Ullah

Former Dean, Faculty of Agriculture
Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka

(Written on 30 January 2026)

 

With less than two weeks remaining before the parliamentary election scheduled for February 12, Bangladesh has entered the most delicate phase of its democratic calendar. Campaigns are intensifying, political messages are multiplying, and public gatherings have become more frequent across the country. In such moments, the manner in which politics is practiced matters as much as the outcome it produces.

Elections are not merely about winning seats; they are about renewing public trust. That trust depends on whether citizens feel free to listen, assemble, choose, and vote without fear or pressure. As election day approaches, this foundational expectation deserves renewed attention from all stakeholders, the political parties, law-enforcement agencies, election administrators, and citizens alike.

Campaigning and the Question of Space

Public meetings and rallies are a legitimate and essential feature of democratic contestation. They provide candidates an opportunity to present ideas and voters a chance to evaluate alternatives. However, when campaign spaces become arenas of confrontation, the democratic purpose of such gatherings is weakened.

Disruptions of opposition meetings, intimidation of participants, or damage to temporary structures, whatever the source, send an unfortunate signal to ordinary voters. Even isolated incidents can create a perception that political competition is being managed through strength rather than persuasion. In crowded societies with a long memory of political unrest, perceptions matter almost as much as facts.

At the same time, excessively orchestrated shows of support, especially where attendance appears compelled rather than voluntary, raise another concern: whether enthusiasm is being demonstrated or manufactured. Genuine public confidence cannot be measured by the size of a gathering alone, but by the freedom with which people choose to participate, or not.

Neutrality as a Democratic Asset

The credibility of any election rests heavily on the conduct of state institutions. Law-enforcement agencies are expected to act impartially, ensuring security for all political actors regardless of affiliation. Where neutrality is visible, tensions tend to ease; where it is questioned, uncertainty grows.

Recent observations suggest that different branches of the security apparatus are being scrutinized closely by the public. This scrutiny should not be seen as hostility, but as a sign of civic awareness. A calm, even-handed presence by security forces, focused on prevention rather than reaction, can significantly reduce the risk of escalation during the campaign period.

Similarly, the Election Commission carries a responsibility not only to administer the vote but also to communicate confidence. Clear instructions, prompt responses to complaints, and transparent enforcement of electoral codes can reassure citizens that rules apply equally to all.

The Regional Context and a Higher Standard

It would be unrealistic to deny that across South Asia, dominant political forces often enjoy structural advantages. History, incumbency, and organizational reach all play a role. Yet democratic maturity is demonstrated precisely when strength is exercised with restraint.

Winning an election through overwhelming support is most convincing when it does not rely on pressure, fear, or exclusion. In fact, restraint enhances legitimacy. A victory achieved in a calm environment carries far greater moral and political weight than one secured amid controversy.

Bangladesh has repeatedly expressed its commitment to constitutional governance and people’s sovereignty. Upholding that commitment requires resisting the temptation to view elections as zero-sum confrontations. Democracy is not weakened by competition; it is weakened when competition is denied fair ground.

The Voter at the Center

At the heart of the election is the ordinary voter, often humble, frequently cautious, and deeply aware of the consequences of political instability. For many citizens, peace is not an abstract value; it is a daily necessity tied to livelihoods, mobility, and security.

Creating an environment where voters can make choices freely is not a concession by any party; it is an obligation owed to the republic itself. When citizens believe their voice matters, participation rises. When fear intervenes, silence follows; and silence is democracy’s quiet erosion.

A Moment for Collective Responsibility

As election day approaches, all political actors have an opportunity to shape not only the result, but the memory of this election. Calm conduct, respectful competition, and institutional discipline can ensure that February 12 is remembered for civic participation rather than confrontation.

Democracy does not demand perfection, but it does require good faith. If parties campaign with confidence rather than coercion, if institutions act with neutrality rather than preference, and if citizens are allowed to choose without pressure, the outcome, whatever it may be, will command acceptance.

In the end, the strongest mandate is not enforced; it is earned. And peace, once preserved during an election, becomes the first dividend of democratic success.