The democracy practiced in Bangladesh

Although democratic systems are in place in most countries today, the methods and practices followed in these democracies are not the same everywhere. However, regardless of the differences in practices, the core principle of democracy is that a government is formed through the direct or indirect vote of the people. Despite numerous debates for and against democracy in political science, democratic systems are considered the best approach for a country's development; however, significant progress can also occur under autocratic rule. In some Middle Eastern Muslim countries, there is no democracy, no accountability, and no freedom of speech for citizens, yet development continues. Therefore, judging democracy solely by development is not appropriate.

In terms of fascism, the democracy practiced in Bangladesh has many similarities with the monarchy systems in the Middle East.
The people of our country are disillusioned with the current form of democracy. When a political party comes to power, corruption and terror reign, and various laws and strategies are employed to suppress the opposition. While in the Middle East, one cannot speak out against the king or the monarch, in Bangladesh, there is at least some room for expression. In the Middle East, speaking out against the king or ruler can lead to brutal consequences, as seen in the case of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was dismembered with a saw. In Bangladesh, speaking out against the government or the ruling party can lead to abductions, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, protection under indemnity laws, or the risk of facing horrific mob lynchings.

The people of this country have never experienced true democratic elections or a genuine democratic governance system. Just like in Pakistan, Bangladesh has repeatedly witnessed military rule, with military rulers forming political parties and those parties winning elections under the supervision of military dictators. Not only did they win, but they also gained the power to amend the constitution with a two-thirds majority. All of this was done in accordance with the supposed rules of democracy.

In Pakistan, President Ayub Khan introduced "Basic Democracy" for his own interests. In this system, the people did not vote directly; instead, members of Basic Democracy (BD) were elected by the people, and these BD members voted to elect the president. Ayub Khan defeated Fatima Jinnah in this election. It was easier to buy a few BD members or union council chairmen and members than to buy votes from the vast majority of the population. However, ultimately, Ayub Khan was overthrown in a popular uprising.

Similarly, in Bangladesh, elections have been held without the people's votes, and parliament has been convened without the opposition parties. In such parliaments, speakers like Jamiruddin Sircar have felt comfortable. Interestingly, even after elections held under a caretaker government, the defeated parties did not join the parliament. Without the opposition, the parliament was silent, inactive, and free from noise or dissent. Due to the opposition's non-cooperation, the ruling party became autocratic and did not feel the pressure to establish good governance.

In the past 53 years, no political government in Bangladesh has faced difficulty in passing repressive laws in parliament. Every government has enacted such laws to curb freedom of speech or to control the opposition, all while adhering to democratic procedures. In a democracy where, at the whim of the ruling party's members of parliament, both good and bad laws can be made lawful, we once again call for a caretaker government, and demand free and fair elections.

In Bangladesh, everyone is vocal about bringing transparency to elections, but there is little effort to legislate in a way that compels the elected government to behave democratically. By passing anti-people laws and engaging in anti-democratic actions, the people are only allowed to experience democracy for one day—on the day of the election. If this system continues, the people of Bangladesh will only taste democracy for one day in every five-year term, while the remaining 1,824 days will be subjected to the grip of fascism.


Under the current system, a government can be formed with a simple majority, meaning that a party or coalition only needs one more representative than half the total seats in parliament. Even if the total votes of the four losing candidates in a constituency are greater than that of the winning candidate, the victorious candidate still gets the chance to represent everyone. Moreover, no political party in Bangladesh has ever governed the country with 50 per cent of the total votes. For example, in the elections held under a caretaker government, in 1991, BNP came to power with 30.08 per cent of the vote, and in 1996, the Awami League came to power with 37.4 per cent of the vote. Similarly, in 1991, BNP won 140 seats with 30.08 per cent of the vote, while the Awami League won only 88 seats with 30.01 per cent of the vote. This discrepancy became even more pronounced in the 2008 elections: Awami League won 230 seats with 49 per cent of the vote, while BNP, with 33.20 per cent of the vote, won only 30 seats.

To address the inconsistencies in the current system, an inclusive electoral system would be more suitable. In this system, both winning and losing candidates would have representation, ensuring that the allocation of parliamentary seats is proportional to the number of votes received by each party. This would guarantee better representation of voters’ preferences. However, this system would reduce the possibility of a single-party government because the seats would be distributed based on the proportion of votes, making it unlikely for any party to achieve a simple majority. Consequently, the larger parties do not support proportional seat allocation, as it would decrease their chances of forming a majority government.

Moreover, not only political parties, but also sitting members of parliament (MPs) are against this system. In a proportional representation system, there would be no individual candidates; instead, the vote would be cast for a symbol, and the number of seats each party receives would be determined based on the proportion of votes. Since MPs would no longer represent specific constituencies, they would become detached from their local areas.

Due to various limitations, no one seems interested in exploring a new form of democracy beyond the current electoral system and democratic practices. However, some reforms within the existing democratic framework are essential. For instance, in an effort to prevent the kind of horse-trading seen with Ayub Khan’s Basic Democracy (BD) members, Article 70 was likely added to the Constitution. This article prohibits MPs from voting against their party’s decision. While this provision may curb some forms of political bargaining, it also highlights the need for reform, especially the removal of this article to promote greater independence among elected representatives.

Currently, MPs vote by raising their hands and shouting, which is an overt display of voting. To bring more democracy into parliamentary proceedings, this practice should be abolished, and MPs should cast their votes electronically through secret ballots. This would ensure that the votes reflect genuine will and reduce the pressure of party allegiance in parliamentary votes.

The ongoing debate about balancing the powers of the President and Prime Minister is futile. The President is nominated by the winning party, so while power may be shared, true balance will never be achieved. If a party-nominated President wishes to be impartial, they will have to face the same fate as President AQM Badruddoza Chowdhury, who was ousted from office. In a system where the Prime Minister holds executive power, the President's role should be purely ceremonial. The President should symbolize the unity of the nation and should have minimal involvement in the day-to-day workings of the government.

In conclusion, while reforming the electoral system is necessary to ensure more democratic representation and reduce undemocratic practices, it is equally important to recognize that the structural limitations of the system need to be addressed for genuine democracy to thrive in Bangladesh.

A reform is urgently needed in the current democratic system, and that reform is to ensure that the government, once elected for its full term, remains committed to good governance and accountability. The lack of a consistent culture of good governance has led to the downfall of successive governments in this region, including those of the National Party, BNP, and Awami League—all of which collapsed following popular uprisings, much like Ayub Khan’s regime. However, it seems no political party has learned from these historical events.

In Bangladesh, democratic vengeance is often more destructive than fascism itself. Fearing retribution and persecution, the ruling party becomes unwilling to relinquish power and instead turns fascist in its efforts to hold onto authority. This cycle of vengeance and oppression makes the political environment highly volatile and oppressive.

In order to prevent any political party or government from becoming arbitrary or dictatorial, it is essential to add the necessary provisions to the Constitution that specifically prevent the abuse of power by any party or ruling government. These provisions should ensure that no party or government can act in an autocratic or oppressive manner. However, whether the Constitution itself holds any real importance today is also a matter for serious consideration.

Zeauddin Ahmed: Former Executive Director, Bangladesh Bank.