Estimated reading time: 7 minutes
If democracy had a scent, in Bangladesh it would be the acrid smell of burning tires. For nearly four decades, elections in this delta nation have been martial events, marred by strikes, machetes, and the terrifying silence of the “hartal” (strike). Yet, as the sun rose over the river Buriganga on 13 February, the air was clear. The 13th Parliamentary Election, held the previous day, did not end in bloodshed. It ended in queuing.
For the first time since 2008, Bangladeshis cast ballots that were actually counted. And they delivered a verdict that is as decisive as it is retrograde.
As the final tallies from the election trickled into the Election Commission’s headquarters, the air of revolutionary fervour was replaced by the cold math of electoral reality. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party has returned from the political wilderness with a crushing two-thirds majority.
The numbers are startling. The Nationalist Party and its allies secured 212 out of 300 seats, an absolute majority that gives their leader, Tarique Rahman, the mandate to reshape the republic. For Rahman — the son of the late President Ziaur Rahman and former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, who passed away recently — this is a personal and political vindication. Having led the party from a self-imposed exile in London for nearly two decades, he returns to the centre of power
Voter participation was around 60%
As I wrote a couple of days before the election, it was difficult to imagine how voters would support the key manifestos of the other contender, the Jamaat-e-Islami, which emerged, as expected, as the second-largest bloc with 77 seats.
The voter participation was around 60%, highly participatory, leaving a question whether the proscribed Awami League supporters stayed away. Of the total votes the Nationalist Party secured nearly half 49.97%, Jamaat a third at 31.76%, the National Citizen’s Party 3.05% and independents 5.79% of the national popular vote, according to The Daily Star newspaper.
These stats are important. If the proposed reforms are implemented, there will be an upper house – of 100 members, to be constituted proportionate to the percentage of total national popular votes received by parties. The Nationalist Party has the numbers to pass legislation in both houses.
There are nuances as well as high-stakes combinations and permutations ahead, in spite of the Nationalist Party’s absolute majority.
The new parliament will have only seven women MPs, a highly disappointing number compared to past parliaments, yet not surprising given that parties did not field many women, specially Jamaat.
The demise of the women’s leaders in a nation led by women for three decades is subject for another piece. Patriarchy, it seems, is back. Indeed, Tarique Rahman will be Bangladesh’s first male prime minister in 35 years. Not many nations can claim that.
Jamaat has not won as many seats as some predicted, perhaps going by their surge in social media. Still, it nearly quadrupled its past best performance of 18 seats in 1991, gaining a significant 31% of the national popular vote, and 77 constituencies.
This represents a fundamental shift in the country’s ideological gravity. While the Nationalist Party campaigned on “restoring democracy,” Jamaat positioned itself as the “cleaner” alternative, capitalising on its grassroots discipline and the perceived corruption of Nationalist Party activists during the interim period, as well as strong anti-India sentiments in some border constituencies.
Alongside the parliamentary vote, Bangladeshis were asked to vote “Yes” or “No” on the July Charter — a package of constitutional reforms designed to prevent the rise of another autocrat. With a 68% “Yes” vote, the mandate is clear. The Charter introduces two-term limits, disallowing any individual from serving as prime minister for more than two terms; judicial independence, a formal mechanism to insulate judges from executive whims; and proportional representation in the upper house, a shift intended to give smaller parties a foothold.
On paper, this is a triumph for the “Gen Z” protesters who sparked the July 2024 uprising. It is a structural safeguard against any ill-intended “life-long” rule. But paper is thin. The Nationalist Party now holds a two-thirds majority — the threshold required to amend the constitution.
Time and again, politicians have failed Bangladesh – pre and post-independence. Leaving the long history and struggles of the pre-independence Bangladesh aside, this election provides yet another opportunity for politicians and leaders to rebuild the country.
The challenges ahead
The peaceful and participatory elections showed, again, that a vast majority of Bangladeshis – young, old, male, female, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Indigenous – want a peaceful and prosperous nation, where they can exercise democratic rights. They want stability, and their leaders to be accountable and face peoples’ choices.
There are some early positive signs. For example, most of the losing candidates have accepted peoples’ verdict, thanked their base and volunteers and promised to work for the next five years building their case, instead of crying foul play. The Jamaat chief’s measured statement was the most constructive one by a losing Bangladeshi opposition leader in many years. Likewise, Rahman has reached out to the losing parties, visiting them in person in a bid to work together.
Yet the challenges ahead are aplenty. These range from rebuilding the economy and institutions, to creating jobs and addressing social issues in a radically changing atmosphere.
Then there are geopolitics, including relations with India, which is sheltering Awami League leaders. Another question is how to manage the ban imposed on Awami League, and handle its significant supporters. In other words, how to govern for all Bangladeshis.
Politicians have squandered such opportunities in the past by bickering and taking their differences to the streets, fighting and resorting to violence, instead of debating in the Parliament. This is what happened in the 1991 elections after the fall of H. M. Ershad, and in the 2008 polls, the last elections widely considered free and participatory — except by supporters of the Nationalist Party that came second.
There were reasons behind this. For one thing, in a unitary system, opposition parties had not much hope of blocking legislations. Nor were there practices of hard committee work with long-term views. Elected leaders mostly treated their appointments as an opportunity to augment their business interests and power. Transparency International Bangladesh, an anti-corruption watchdog reported 16 February that nearly 80% of the newly elected members of the parliament are millionaires, which is perhaps not too dissimilar to parliaments under the Awami League.
Further, a rift has already emerged between the Nationalist Party and Jamaat on today’s 17 February oath-taking and the ‘YES’ vote’s interpretations. The conflict centers on the “Constitution Reform Council” to implement the July Charter. The Nationalist Party insists the Council should be formed only after the new parliament sits, meaning elected members do not need to take a separate oath as Council members yet; Jamaat members have taken this oath.
Obviously, these types of differences are normal in any democracy – with governments and oppositions debating policies. Yet, this would be an ominous start, if Bangladesh’s parliamentary past is any gauge to anticipate the next five years.
Ink, not blood
Bangladesh has a long list of disappointments and promises broken by politicians. Now, the July Charter, supported by elected parties, provides a set of realistic improvements, including some that are practical, doable and dependent largely on the will of those now in power.
For example, freedom of expression and press freedom. In the past few decades successive parties have stifled free speech, and in a world where press freedom has deteriorated globally, Bangladesh is ranked at 149. Issues to be tackled include enforced disappearances and excesses of party thugs.
It is understandable that fixing the economy, building institutions will take longer and sustainable efforts. But maintaining the rule of law, controlling party members and letting people (oppositions and journalists) express themselves could be done as a priority immediately, as promised in campaign trails.
Bangladesh held a credible election. That is a triumph.
The voters have done their job. They have cleared the deck.
Now comes the test of the new leader. Tarique Rahman has a choice. He can be the man who restored the dynasty, ruling through the old style of patronage and police, ensuring that the pendulum eventually swings back to chaos. Or he can be the man who broke the wheel — who used a supermajority to limit his own power, who built institutions that survive him, and who realised that the true legacy of the “Monsoon Revolution” was not his return, but the country’s renewal.
For the first time in a long time, the future of Bangladesh is not written in stone, but in ink. And ink, unlike blood, can be rewritten.
As the streets of Dhaka buzz with the energy of a new beginning, one can be forgiven a moment of cautious hope. The people have spoken.
This article was first published in sapannews.com.