Democracy is not just about holding elections. It is about holding elections that honor the will of the people, protect their rights, and reflect their diverse voices. Elections are meant to be the peaceful pulse of a nation, a moment when citizens stand equal, regardless of wealth, religion, or power, and decide their future together.
But what happens when that promise is broken? What happens when the very forces that contest elections do not believe in the system they seek to enter? What happens when fear replaces hope, when money drowns out voices, and when entire communities are excluded from the democratic table?
As Bangladesh approaches the elections of February 12, 2026, these are not hypothetical questions. They are the lived reality of millions of citizens who watch, with deep anxiety, as their democracy teeters on the edge.
The Paradox of Anti-Democratic Forces in Democratic Elections:
One of the most troubling developments is the participation of Islamic political parties whose ideologies fundamentally reject the very foundation of democracy. These political parties do not hide their ambitions. They openly advocate for sharia law, a system that leaves no room for pluralism, equal rights, or the freedoms that democracy promises.
Under such a system, minorities would be relegated to second-class status. Women would lose the autonomy, dignity, and opportunities they have fought for over generations. The space for dissent, debate, and difference, the lifeblood of any democracy, would vanish.
This is not about religious belief. Faith is a personal matter, and every citizen has the right to practice it freely. But when political movements weaponize religion to dismantle the democratic framework itself, we must ask: should democracy be required to facilitate its own destruction?
Allowing forces that reject equality, pluralism, and constitutional governance to compete in elections is not a sign of democratic maturity. It is a slow surrender. It normalizes the idea that democracy is negotiable, that fundamental rights are up for debate, and that inclusion can somehow coexist with exclusion. It cannot.
The Systematic Exclusion of Women: A Democracy That Denies Half Its Citizens:
The hypocrisy becomes even sharper when we examine how these political parties treat women within their own structures. Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami does not allow women to hold leadership positions. Not one woman has been nominated by Jamaat in this election. In their vision of political representation, half the population simply does not exist.
Even more telling was the recent incident in Barishal, where a leader of Bangladesh Islami Andolan refused to participate in a television dialogue because a female candidate was present. Think about what this means. A party seeking to govern a nation of over 170 million people, where women are voters, taxpayers, professionals, and citizens, cannot bear to share a debate stage with a woman.
This is not a minor detail. It is a declaration of intent. If these parties cannot accept women as equals in a television studio, how will they treat them in parliament? In courts? In schools and workplaces? If they refuse to debate women now, will they respect laws that protect women’s rights later?
Bangladesh’s constitution guarantees equality regardless of gender. Women have led this nation as prime ministers, served as speakers of parliament, excelled as judges, educators, entrepreneurs, and freedom fighters. To allow political forces that deny women even basic dignity to compete for power is to insult that legacy. It is to tell millions of mothers, daughters, and sisters that their citizenship is conditional, their rights negotiable, and their voices unwelcome.
Democracy cannot survive when half its citizens are treated as inferior by those who seek to rule them.
When Minorities Are Terrorized for Their Vote:
The violence is not limited to women. Bangladesh’s minority communities, particularly Hindus, have never enjoyed true safety in their own homeland. But during elections, their vulnerability becomes acute. They face a cruel choice: vote under threat, or face the consequences.
In Nilphamari, Jamaat-e-Islami workers allegedly attacked and burned the houses of Hindu families over the issue of voting. Read that again. Citizens were attacked, their homes set ablaze, because of how they might exercise their democratic right. This is not an isolated incident. It is part of a long, painful pattern where minorities are treated not as equal citizens, but as targets.
When political parties that openly advocate religious supremacy are allowed to contest elections, minorities know what is coming. They know that their safety, their property, their very existence in their ancestral land depends on staying silent, staying invisible, or voting as commanded. This is not participation. This is extortion.
A democracy where citizens are burned out of their homes for their political choices is not a democracy. It is a reign of terror with a ballot box. And when the state fails to protect its most vulnerable citizens, when it allows those who perpetrate such violence to contest for power, it becomes complicit in that terror.
The Hindu community of Bangladesh, along with Buddhists, Christians, and other minorities, are not guests in this nation. They are its children. Their ancestors built this land. Their labor, culture, and sacrifices are woven into its fabric. To allow their persecution in the name of electoral politics is to betray the very soul of Bangladesh.
The Shadows of Money and Muscle:
Beyond ideology, there is another crisis unfolding: the toxic role of black money and armed intimidation in this electoral process.
Free elections require a level playing field. But when unaccounted wealth floods campaigns, when candidates with no visible means of income pour crores into publicity, rallies, and vote buying, the principle of equality is shattered. Ordinary citizens with integrity and vision are priced out. Democracy becomes an auction, not a choice.
Equally corrosive is the use of violence and intimidation. Reports of armed groups threatening voters, attacking opposition supporters, and creating a climate of fear are not just violations of electoral norms. They are assaults on the dignity of citizens. When people go to the polls in fear, they do not vote freely. They comply. And compliance is not consent.
Elections conducted under the shadow of guns and money are not democratic exercises. They are exercises in control.
The Exclusion of Major Political Forces:
Perhaps the starkest indication that this election lacks legitimacy is the exclusion of one of Bangladesh’s major political parties, the Bangladesh Awami League, from participating.
Democracy thrives on competition. It requires that all significant political forces have the space to contest, to present their vision, and to allow voters to decide. When a major party is barred, sidelined, or made unable to compete, the result is not an election. It is a selection.
This is not about supporting any particular party. It is about recognizing that when large segments of the electorate are denied representation, when their political aspirations are silenced before the ballot is even cast, the outcome cannot claim to reflect the will of the people.
A democracy that cannot accommodate political diversity is a democracy in name only.
What is at Stake:
The consequences of flawed elections extend far beyond the immediate results. They poison the well of public trust. They normalize the idea that power is seized, not earned. They teach citizens that their voice does not matter, that participation is futile, and that democracy is a game rigged in favor of the powerful.
Over time, this disillusionment hardens into cynicism. People stop believing in institutions. Social divisions deepen. The space for peaceful resolution of conflicts shrinks. What remains is a society fractured, angry, and vulnerable to authoritarianism.
Bangladesh has come too far, endured too much, and sacrificed too many lives to allow its democracy to be hollowed out this way.
Referendum:
Holding a referendum alongside the general election seriously weakens democratic integrity in Bangladesh. Instead of allowing citizens to consider constitutional questions carefully, it mixes complex policy decisions with partisan campaigning. This blurs the line between direct democracy and party politics, increasing the risk of confusion, manipulation and loss of public trust.
Such a move is highly unusual and sets a dangerous precedent. Rather than strengthening democracy, it may deepen political instability and create a legitimacy crisis for both the referendum and the elected government. Critical constitutional decisions deserve independent, focused deliberation, not the pressure of simultaneous electoral competition.
A Nation Born in Blood, A Promise Under Siege:
Bangladesh was not gifted its freedom. It was earned through the bloodshed of three million lives. Those martyrs did not die for power to be grabbed by force or bought with black money. They died for democracy. For equality. For secularism. For a nation where every citizen, regardless of faith, gender, or political belief, could stand with dignity and participate in shaping their future.
That promise has always been fragile. Military rule has interrupted it repeatedly. Authoritarian impulses have tested it again and again. Democracy in Bangladesh has never been a settled fact. It has been a constant struggle, a battle fought generation after generation.
Conclusion:
This election has been controversial from the very beginning. Serious questions have been raised about the legitimacy of the interim government overseeing the process. it lacks both a clear democratic mandate and a firm constitutional foundation.
The political backing of the current arrangement, including support from the Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and other Islamist allies, has further intensified public debate about neutrality and credibility. As a result, instead of strengthening democratic institutions, this election risks deepening political uncertainty.
Bangladesh now faces a critical moment. The period after the election may bring significant challenges to democracy, constitutional governance and institutional stability. Restoring public trust, ensuring transparency and upholding democratic principles will be essential to prevent a broader crisis of governance in the country.
Parvez Hashem, Lawyer and Human Rights Defender
