Why authorities’ bias in DUCSU election

The DUCSU election was not only long-awaited, but alongside people’s expectations, their aspirations were immense. For so long the election had been turned into a farce, and every year fees were taken from educational institutions but there was no elected student union. After many years, the DUCSU election was held in 2019, while in some institutions elections were held once in the 1970s and never again. From such a state we hoped to move towards a truly democratic environment of education and also a democratic environment in politics. Everyone wanted a fair election.

But there was a fear that students might not come to vote, and it was very surprising that the date was fixed in such a way that it fell on the final day of all semester examinations. On the very day when everyone would be busy with studies, when would they then campaign in a festive way? Since everyone was busy with exams, a holiday was given. Before and after, long holidays. Those who had not been able to go home for many days naturally said, all right, let us leave the halls now and go home on holiday.

From the very beginning there was an attempt to reduce turnout, so that not many students would come to vote. Moreover, the number of polling agents or centres set up was very negligible compared to the number of voters, and if calculated it was clear that if everyone came to vote the polling would not end before midnight. But polling was scheduled to end at 4 p.m. After that there would be no more voting.

So, from the beginning there was suspicion whether any circle was working behind these matters. Then it was seen that the university administration and teachers, from the proctor to those newly recruited in different departments, came through one particular channel, through recommendation, and many identified people of a particular ideology with known political affiliations entered in large numbers.

Alongside that we saw, and we all know, that the force I am referring to are in the habit of infiltrating in disguise. The leaders of their camp themselves have openly said that at that time they entered the Chhatra League committee by paying bribes of so many lakhs of taka. I myself played a role there as a member of the Hundabahon. They are used to adopting such tactics.

So some things perhaps we knew, and everyone understood, while many perhaps concealed their identity and, in disguise, acted as Jamaat-Shibir puppets, executing their hateful plans, each deputed in different roles. Thus from the very beginning we saw such deviations, which made us doubt whether a fair election would be held at all.

On the day of election there was fear of chaos and of students not coming. But they did come. How many came, how many voted, what we are told is what we know. In the past, during Ziaur Rahman’s yes-no vote, it was announced that 98 per cent had voted yes. For such reasons people had lost faith in the electoral system. That trust needed to be restored. Even so, without any major incident—though some minor incidents happened before noon—the election went on.

But from noon in Ducsu incidents began: one leader was detained, another was let through, one party’s leader was allowed, another’s not. The impression was that you are an outsider, and these are the real ones, my own people. That is to say, from the start there were signs of bias by the authorities. But I did not believe it. And yet such things cannot prevail if ordinary students in groups exercise their rights. Something of that kind did happen.

But suspicion increased elsewhere. For an election does not end with casting votes; it truly ends with counting the results. Serious allegations emerged there. One was that during voting some ballot papers were already ticked or marked with crosses in advance. This was caught red-handed. Although that person was temporarily withdrawn, by this it was admitted that such things were happening. Some may say it was just one incident. But no—if one incident was caught, who can guarantee that there were not a thousand others which went undetected? Why should it be only one? If one could happen, a thousand could. This should have been monitored and action taken. It was not. Then in the evening counting began and results were displayed on LED screens.

It was seen that the part focused on by the camera was blurred, the view hazy, nothing visible clearly. If there were major discrepancies it might not be visible, and what was written on the paper, what was marked on the ballot paper, you could not investigate. As far as I have heard, ballot counting was visual—marks counted by eye, what is called tally marks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and so on. I heard that ballot papers were scanned and by scanning the machine automatically detected on which number the cross mark was given. Now there was already a controversy over electronic voting machines. The Election Commission had brought us there ten or twelve times and shown by experiments and displays that under no circumstances could it be hacked or interfered with, and it would give exact results. But this time neither we, nor the students, nor the candidates were informed, and without informing them this was done. That there is no scope for manipulation inside it. So the level of suspicion increased.

On Facebook I saw (I do not know, these days false news also spreads) that in two halls the same person got exactly the same number of votes. In two or three halls the same number of votes—this is quite astonishing. In science, statistics or probability theory such a thing is impossible—that in two separate places, with entirely different voters, the numbers would be exactly the same: two hundred and forty-one here, two hundred and forty-one there. It seemed as if it was written on a paper and results were made accordingly. So reasonably, though not all, almost everyone outside the ruling camp has rejected this result and demanded either recounting or a fresh election.

Mujahidul Islam Selim: Politician and former DUCSU VP
Transcript: Shahadat Hossain Touhid