The armed forces, once sidelined from meaningful electoral oversight, are now set to return as a key force in Bangladesh’s upcoming 13th parliamentary election. This marks a significant reversal after 16 years, during which the ruling Awami League orchestrated three controversial elections while minimising the army’s influence.
In past elections, the Awami League government removed the armed forces from the legal definition of “law enforcement agencies” under the Representation of the People Order (RPO), 1972. This stripped army personnel of the authority to arrest electoral offenders without a warrant, a power retained by police and paramilitary forces. As a result, soldiers had less authority than even Ansar members during polls.
This legal marginalisation was extended to local government elections as well. The military was neither granted judicial powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure nor deployed effectively under the Armed Forces in Aid to Civil Power provisions. Analysts say this legal sidestepping allowed greater freedom for vote rigging and manipulation.
Election experts and former officials affirm that effective military deployment had historically ensured fairer polls. However, despite requests from the Election Commission (EC) — such as in the 2011 Narayanganj city election — the government repeatedly ignored or delayed deployment, citing no necessity. Even when troops were mobilised, such as in the 2014 general election, they remained confined to cantonments.
That is set to change. The Election Reform Commission has recommended that armed forces be reinstated as part of the legal definition of law enforcement under the RPO. The EC has since submitted a proposal to the Cabinet for this amendment. Army Chief General Waker-Uz-Zaman has confirmed that the military stands ready to support the EC for a free, fair, and peaceful election, pending formal instructions.
Election reform commission member Dr Abdul Alim noted the army’s significant past contributions, including the development of voter ID cards and the digital voter list. He argued that removing their authority enabled political interference and electoral fraud. Similarly, former election official Begum Jesmin Tuli pointed out that the army’s non-partisan nature makes it more trustworthy than other enforcement bodies.
The 2014 and 2015 elections were particularly criticised for keeping troops under the indirect command of magistrates, limiting their independence. Critics say magistrates can be politically pressured, undermining neutrality. The decision to restrict the army’s operational role was viewed as strategic—enabling more flexible manipulation of election outcomes.
The upcoming election may now restore that lost confidence. Military officials, for their part, have reiterated their readiness to play a neutral, law-abiding role. Whether this signals a shift toward a more credible electoral process or becomes another missed opportunity will largely depend on political will and legal execution.
As political tensions rise, many voters and parties see the army not as a threat—but as their last hope for a fair election.
Bd-pratidin English/TR
