Unless something unexpected happens, the country is likely to embark on the path to democracy this February. The government and political parties have reportedly reached a consensus on the matter. Following the London meeting, the government appears to have temporarily abandoned its strategy of creating confusion over the upcoming election. This consensus not only paves the way for the democratic process but also allows the interim government to exit smoothly—a development that is also positive for the government itself.
However, there are widespread allegations that certain elements within the government are working to derail the February polls through various underhanded means.
Although the constitution provides no scope for an interim government, the current government, having been formed under the directive of the highest court, has acquired constitutional legitimacy. Its key responsibility is to hold a free and fair national election. Yet, there are doubts about how sincerely it is fulfilling this duty.
The Local Government Reform Commission seems to be trying to impose the ghost of Basic Democracy from Pakistan's era under the guise of reform. In civilised democratic nations, local governments are seen as "people’s governments" because institutions like union councils, upazila parishads, or municipalities are closely linked to grassroots people's day-to-day lives—unlike the central government.
Many elders remember Pakistan’s military ruler General Ayub Khan, who seized power in October 1958. The watchman of the house became the landlord. To legitimise his unlawful takeover, Ayub introduced a peculiar concept called Basic Democracy. In that system, the president, parliament, and other institutions were chosen by 80,000 so-called “basic democrats,” i.e., Union Parishad members. Except for electing these members, the general public had no voting rights. Ayub fell from power in the mass uprising of 1969, which also ended the Basic Democracy system. Many now believe that the interim government is trying to revive this decayed system and force it upon the people. Others think it is being raised simply to create unnecessary debate, knowing full well it cannot be imposed.
Even though a consensus has been reached with political parties regarding the national election, there seems to be a puppet show still going on. A group that played a controversial role during the Liberation War is reportedly working to build an unholy political alliance to introduce an “Israeli-style” proportional representation (PR) system in Bangladesh.
But any election must be held under the constitution. The government is fully aware that without constitutional amendment, a PR-based election is not possible. Neither the government nor the Election Commission has the authority to enforce any electoral system that contradicts the constitution. Article 65(2) clearly states that parliamentary elections are to be held on a single-member constituency basis. Therefore, any effort to bypass this provision and push for a PR system raises serious questions.
Under the constitution, multiple candidates—including independents—can contest from a single constituency. The candidate with the highest number of votes wins. If a party fails to nominate a competent candidate, there remains an option for a deserving candidate to contest independently. Bangladesh has many such examples where independents have defeated party nominees. This compels political parties to consider merit when selecting candidates.
In contrast, PR makes candidates beholden to the party leadership. If a competent candidate is not included on the party list, there’s no avenue to protest or challenge it. In a PR system, parties publish a ranked list of candidates before voting, which may lead to multiple MPs representing one area—or no MP representing some areas at all.
BNP Standing Committee Member Salahuddin Ahmed recently told the media that under Bangladesh’s social and political context, people are used to electing a known individual from their own constituency as their representative. Voters cast ballots based on a personal connection with the candidate. Multiple representatives for one area would reduce voter interest and weaken effective democracy. PR does not allow for independent candidates, thereby barring popular nonpartisan individuals from being elected to parliament.
For these reasons, BNP and its like-minded parties have rejected the PR proposal. The party has decided to counter any attempt to impose this system through political means. If an election is held under PR, even if the largest party receives 40% of the vote, it would win only about 120 out of 300 seats—falling short of a majority. It would then need to rely on other parties to form a coalition government. Such a situation would lead to a hung parliament and political instability. In such a fragile political state, foreign actors may try to meddle in the country’s internal affairs.
Proportional representation has been proven to bring political instability, with Nepal being a prime example. After overthrowing its monarchy and adopting a democratic system, Nepal introduced PR elections. Since then, no government has lasted even a full year, resulting in continued instability. A foreign-backed group in Bangladesh is now campaigning for a similar system to destabilise the country politically.
The most critical point is that PR cannot be introduced without a constitutional amendment, which can only be done by parliament. Currently, there is no functioning parliament. If the PR system is imposed based on so-called consensus, it will lack legitimacy. Moreover, not all political parties were invited to take part in the government-formed consensus commission, nor are they participating.
Analysts believe that bizarre proposals like PR elections are being floated one after another to delay the election. If somehow the PR system is imposed, political stability in Bangladesh would be severely undermined. A powerful foreign country, eyeing dominance over Bangladesh due to its geopolitical significance, views parties committed to the spirit of the Liberation War—particularly the BNP, founded by the proclaimer of independence, Ziaur Rahman—as obstacles. Hence, they are trying to implement controversial systems like PR through alliances with anti-liberation forces.
This would ultimately devastate political stability and hurt the economy, leaving Bangladesh vulnerable to foreign imposition. The people of this country must remain vigilant against such conspiracies. Those who are trying to impose an Israeli-style electoral model and turn Bangladesh into another Gaza must be resisted at any cost.
The author is Joint Secretary General of BNP and former General Secretary of Dhaka University Central Students' Union (DUCSU).
