Editorial Analysis re-published from TBR
Bangladesh held its election amid serious constitutional violations, erosion of the rule of law, and persistent human rights abuses. This moment was not merely procedural; for many citizens, it became a struggle for political survival.
Those who devoted their lives to liberating and building Bangladesh have faced renewed pressure from forces seeking to establish faith-based rule. They sided with Islamic Republic of Pakistan against the liberal-minded citizens of their own homeland. Many leaders of these hardline Islamist groups are linked to individuals implicated in the 1971 genocide.
The July 2024 movement, often called a “colour revolution,” openly defied constitutional governance, the rule of law, and the legacy of Bangladesh’s liberation leadership. The Awami League, pro-liberation activists, ordinary supporters, and the Hindu community have been criminalized and subjected to arbitrary violence, mass arrests, false legal cases, and extortion of land and businesses. To date, nearly fifty Awami League leaders have died in prison without their cases reaching court, many reportedly while still in handcuffs. Over a thousand grass-roots activists have been killed, and hundreds of thousands remain fugitives, with many deprived of their education at universities and medical colleges.
That rupture triggered a violent period now exceeding sixteen months, marked by widespread repression and institutional breakdown. Hundreds of elected parliamentarians remain imprisoned, while the Prime Minister continues to live in exile under credible threats. The country’s largest political party has been barred from participation, and mass arrests have targeted its supporters.
Under these conditions, the meaning of electoral consent and democratic legitimacy demands urgent re-examination.
Bangladesh’s election now raises serious legitimacy concerns. Constitutional uncertainty, a history of unprecedented violence, and reported irregularities cast doubt on international observation and democratic credibility.
The Washington Examiner reported that Bangladesh’s 2024 crisis began with student protests that escalated into deadly violence and were subsequently misread by key international actors. With the parliamentary election now concluded, the central question has shifted from anticipation to assessment: can an election conducted amid coercion, exclusion, and constitutional uncertainty be regarded as legitimate?
Bangladesh’s election raises legitimacy concerns, as constitutional uncertainty, a history of unprecedented violence, and reported irregularities cast doubt on international observation and democratic credibility.
The Washington Examiner reported that Bangladesh’s 2024 crisis began with student protests that escalated into deadly violence and was subsequently misread by key international actors. With the parliamentary election now concluded, the central question has shifted from anticipation to assessment: can an election conducted amid coercion, exclusion, and constitutional uncertainty be regarded as legitimate?
Following an invitation from Bangladesh’s Interim Government (IG), the European Union deployed an Election Observation Mission (EOM) for the parliamentary election held on 12 February. Election observation is intended to uphold democratic standards. However, under the prevailing political and constitutional conditions in Bangladesh, EU involvement risks contradicting its own foundational principles of democracy, constitutionalism, and the rule of law.
Initial publicly released EU observation materials show monitors visiting polling sites with very low voter presence. While further information and official findings are expected, these early visuals reinforce concerns regarding participation, consent, and credibility.
As post-election information continues to emerge, multiple local reports and voter accounts raise additional concerns that warrant urgent scrutiny.
In a significant number of locations, reports suggest that ballots were cast during the night prior to polling day, allegedly by organized party members rather than by voters during official voting hours. Several voters have reported arriving at polling stations only to be told that their votes had already been recorded.
These reports must be viewed in the broader institutional context. Since August 2024, the civil administration has undergone significant restructuring, with widespread claims that individuals aligned with Jamaat-e-Islami have been placed in key administrative positions. At the same time, BNP-aligned interests are reported to have consolidated influence across segments of the media and business sectors.
There are also emerging allegations that result sheets were signed in advance, including claims that presiding officers completed documentation prior to the close of polling. Some reports identify the involvement of political activists aligned with Jamaat-e-Islami, though these allegations remain subject to verification.
Taken together, these developments raise serious questions about administrative neutrality, electoral integrity, and the separation between state authority and partisan interests.
Why the EU Should Refrain from Supporting the Interim Government
There are four fundamental grounds for concern.
1. Absence of Constitutional Mandate
The Interim Government lacks a clear constitutional basis. Its authority does not arise from an electoral mandate or a constitutionally sanctioned transition mechanism.
2. Risk of Conferring Legitimacy
EU election observation in this context risks conferring procedural legitimacy on an authority whose legal standing remains contested, regardless of technical assessments of polling day operations.
3. Retroactive Legalization of Unconstitutional Actions
The proposed referendum appears designed to retroactively legalize actions taken since July, including decisions made without constitutional authority, by weakening accountability provisions embedded in the constitution.
4. Erosion of Constitutional Safeguards
By engaging with and implicitly validating the Interim Government, international actors risk undermining constitutional protections for the people of Bangladesh and weakening long-standing democratic safeguards.
Election observation under such conditions may function as scrutiny on paper, but it also risks becoming legitimacy in practice, including for actions involving serious violations of democratic norms.
Political Breakdown and the July Violence
The Washington Examiner notes that Bangladesh’s unrest stemmed from a violent political breakdown. Available evidence indicates that a High Court ruling was used as a pretext, even while the matter remained sub judice in July. Rather than awaiting judicial resolution, political mobilization escalated rapidly.
These protests were reportedly organized by 44 Islamist parties and their allies, some of whom present themselves internationally as “moderate.” Bangladesh’s history warrants caution. Jamaat-e-Islami, which fled to Pakistan following its role in the 1971 genocide, was politically rehabilitated through alliances with the BNP. The return of Golam Azam and subsequent Islamist consolidation occurred through political accommodation, not democratic reform.
The July violence did not represent democratic dissent. It constituted a systematic assault on constitutional governance, exploiting freedoms such as speech and assembly to spread misinformation and incite violence. Groups openly hostile to democratic pluralism used democratic space to undermine democracy itself.
Collapse of Democratic Order and Its Consequences
The scale and brutality of the July violence amounted to a direct attack on the democratic process and the rule of law, ultimately forcing the elected Prime Minister to leave the country against her will.
Since then, Bangladesh has witnessed:
Thousands of deaths and injuries
- Widespread arson, looting, and forced changes of business ownership
- Closure of factories and collapse of livelihoods
- A ban on activities of the Awami League, the country’s largest and oldest political party and a central force in Bangladesh’s liberation history
Elections conducted under repression, exclusion, and fear cannot reflect the genuine will of the people.
A Strategic Risk Beyond Bangladesh
Bangladesh’s crisis is no longer solely a domestic concern. Failure to address unconstitutional governance risks deepening instability with regional, economic, and security consequences. Over time, such instability may also affect U.S. and European strategic, commercial, and geopolitical interests, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region.
The contradiction is stark:
How can scrutiny be claimed while legitimacy is simultaneously conferred?
Call to Action: An Appeal to the International Community
When an interim authority without constitutional mandate organizes elections and a referendum that weakens accountability, international observation risks becoming political endorsement, not democratic protection.
The Bangla Review calls upon:
Diplomats and missions of the European Union
- Friends of Bangladesh across democratic nations
- International human rights organizations
- Global media and policy institutions
To reassess engagement with the post-election process in Bangladesh.
We urge:
Denial of recognition to elections held under coercion, exclusion, and administrative capture
- Independent international investigation into electoral irregularities and pre-poll activities
- Public insistence on constitutional restoration
- Protection of political pluralism, secular voices, and minority rights
- Accountability for violence and institutional breakdown
Democracy cannot be defended by legitimizing its erosion.
Editorial Note
This analysis reflects information available at the time of publication. Additional findings and verified data will be reported as they emerge.
Journalist and writer working in Bengali, English, and Swedish, telling stories of justice, politics, and human resilience.
My work continues under extremists’ threat, but silence has never been an option.
I write to document, to resist, and to keep memory of mankind alive.