Professor Muhammad Yunus, head of Bangladesh’s interim government, faced backlash today (June 11, 2025) after making controversial remarks at an event hosted by Chatham House in London. He stated, “In Bangladesh, during elections, people can be bought with money—‘give money, get votes’.” The implication of this comment is that Awami League supporters would vote for BNP if paid, BNP supporters would vote for Awami League, and even Jamaat or other party supporters would do the same. He further implied that even members of civil society abandon their political ideals for money.
But is this truly the reality? Election statistics from Bangladesh do not support Yunus’s claim. For instance, in the 2008 election, the Awami League secured 48.04% of the votes and won 230 seats, while the BNP-Jamaat alliance received 32.50% of the vote and secured only 30 seats.
According to observers, if elections are free and fair, most political parties receive roughly the same proportion of votes over time because their vote banks do not shift drastically. If it were really possible to buy votes with money, such electoral outcomes would not be possible.
Many believe that Yunus made this remark without any factual basis, and in doing so, insulted not only Bangladeshi voters but all 180 million citizens. They argue that while money does play a role in elections in every country, even if a few individuals in Bangladesh vote in exchange for money, it is defamatory and misleading to generalize and accuse all voters.
Yunus Faces Intense Questioning at Chatham House
Beyond elections, Yunus also faced rigorous questioning on a range of issues during the Chatham House event. True to his usual style, he dodged direct answers and frequently diverted the discussion. On critical topics like political repression, press freedom, corruption, electoral transparency, and reform, he provided no clear or concrete responses.
The session was chaired by Bronwen Maddox, Director and Chief Executive of Chatham House. A renowned journalist, Maddox opened the discussion by raising several controversial issues. These included the banning of the Awami League, Bangladesh-India relations after Sheikh Hasina’s removal, and the unresolved Rohingya repatriation crisis. Drawing on her long experience as editor and CEO of Prospect Magazine and former roles at The Times and The Financial Times, Maddox posed questions with journalistic insight and firmness.
When doubts were raised about the legitimacy of the election held without the Awami League, Professor Yunus claimed that the party had not been “banned” but was merely “temporarily suspended.”
Maddox suggested that the trials of Sheikh Hasina and others should be left to a future elected government. In response, Yunus insisted, “First reform, then justice, then election.”
Maddox countered by saying that many observers believe reforms should be legitimized through public mandate. She warned that bypassing democratic processes could turn his administration into another authoritarian regime.
Yunus dismissed this concern as “just an opinion, not a judgment.”
When asked about allegations of press repression, Yunus denied them outright and asserted, “Bangladesh has never had this level of press freedom before.”
Journalists and audience members also raised concerns about the destruction of various historical sites, including the residence of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, but Yunus failed to give any clear answers to those allegations.
