Ahead of the upcoming national election, the Election Commission has introduced an “IT-supported postal ballot” system, allowing expatriate Bangladeshis as well as government officials and employees working within the country to cast their votes. The initiative,
aimed at ensuring voting rights for those engaged in election duties or posted outside their home constituencies, has been welcomed by many as a positive step. However, controversy has emerged over the structure of the accompanying declaration form and the method of data preservation linked to postal ballots.
In a memorandum dated December 11 and signed by Additional Secretary of the Election Commission Secretariat K.M. Ali Newaz, it was stated that expatriate voters, officials and employees assigned to election duties, government employees working outside their constituencies,
and voters in legal custody must complete registration through the “Postal Vote BD” app. Instructions were also issued to send SMS notifications via the iBAS++ system to all salaried military and civilian officials and employees.
The controversy centers on Form-8, titled “Voter’s Declaration.” Allegations have surfaced that the eight-digit serial number printed on the postal ballot paper is identical to the eight-digit serial number on the declaration form. After marking the ballot, voters are required to sign the declaration form, include their National ID number, and submit it to the Election Commission along with the ballot.
The declaration requires voters, citing various provisions of the election rules, to affirm that they are the rightful recipient of the ballot bearing the specific serial number and that they cast their vote secretly and without influence. It also requires them to acknowledge that, having opted for a postal ballot, they will not attempt to vote in person at a polling station.
Critics argue that the identical serial numbers on the ballot and declaration form could make it possible to trace how a specific individual voted. Since the declaration form includes the voter’s name, signature, and National ID number and is retained by the Election Commission, matching it with the ballot serial number could potentially compromise ballot secrecy.
These concerns are particularly acute for government officials and employees. Observers warn that in the event of a change in government, public servants suspected of supporting rival political forces could face administrative harassment, transfers, or even job loss. Such risks, they argue, cannot be dismissed outright.
Another issue has been raised regarding Rule 11(3) of the Election Rules, which states that a postal ballot should contain only symbols, without printing candidates’ names. However, allegations indicate that candidates’ names have been printed on postal ballots, potentially contradicting the rules.
The Election Commission has yet to provide an official explanation for maintaining identical serial numbers on both the ballot and the declaration form. Election experts suggest that serial numbers may be necessary for ballot accounting, but directly linking them to identifiable declaration forms naturally raises concerns about voter secrecy.
Under the Constitution, the right to vote is a fundamental right. Election laws and regulations mandate that voters must be able to cast their ballots privately and free from influence. In that context, unless the data preservation and tracking mechanisms of the postal ballot system are transparent and secure, public skepticism over the secrecy of the vote is likely to persist.
While ensuring voting rights for government officials and employees is commendable, observers say the process must not create fear or uncertainty among them. It now remains to be seen what steps the Election Commission will take to address these concerns.
