#Title

Is an election like the UK possible in Bangladesh?
It is quite encouraging to hear Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina tell British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly that the Awami League government wants the national polls in Bangladesh to be free and fair like they are in the United Kingdom. It is probably the most specific statement to persuade the international community that there won’t be any repetition of the previous two parliamentary elections widely seen as neither free nor fair. Her party won the January 2014 election well before a single vote was cast, as it was boycotted by others following the unilateral abolition of the constitutional provision for election-time non-partisan caretaker government. Though the next election held in December 2018 was a participatory one, it was, again, marred with controversies, including ballot stuffing on the night before, reportedly aided by government officials and members of the law enforcement agencies.
Besides those two parliamentary elections, a few other elections held over the last 10 years, with a handful exceptions, were marred with similar controversies, largely due to the ruling party’s “winner takes all” narrow mindset, and not conceding an inch to the opposition parties. In the process of keeping a tighter grip on power at every level of the state, it has been alleged that the system has been rigged in such a way that no institution can function independently anymore. Therefore, it’s quite reasonable to ask: how can our election be something similar to those in the UK?
The UK model, understandably, is quite useful for the ruling Awami League as it nullifies, at least superficially, the opposition demand for the restoration of a caretaker government system. In the UK, the party in power remains in office during elections, though in a caretaker capacity, with limited functions of essential routine affairs of the government. Citing this British model, the Awami League argues that the Election Commission will have full authority on election-related affairs and the government will refrain from anything else other than supporting the Election Commission and running the routine work.
The ruling party’s core argument in abolishing the caretaker government system was that even routine functions should not be left with any unelected authority, and for that reason, in the 15th Amendment of the constitution, parliament was kept alive until its successor was elected. This provision alone is quite contrary to the Westminster model, where parliament gets dissolved as soon as an election is called, which means the incumbent prime minister and ministers cease to be elected representatives when they act as a caretaker government.
By keeping parliament in place under the 15th Amendment, distrust among the contending parties have grown as it can – at least theoretically – annul the election by inventing frivolous allegations of fraud or irregularities if the result means dislodgement from power, creating serious political chaos and upheaval. Former US President Donald Trump’s attempt of undoing the election results shows it can happen in any country.
The most crucial part of the UK model of election is the role of the civil service, which in the current scenario is almost impossible in Bangladesh. As soon as a general election is called in the UK, a “purdah ” kicks in and all civil service members are reminded of the guideline to abide by. Though the government retains the responsibility to govern, and ministers remain in charge of their departments, civil servants are required to follow some key principles, including 1) avoid any activity that could call their political impartiality into question; and 2) ensure that public resources are not used for party-political purposes. These principles are not only applicable to government departments, but all other non-departmental public bodies that receive any amount of public funding. Bangladesh’s abolished caretaker system had, to some extent, tried to emulate such principles, but now it’s been abandoned and replaced with civil servants’ unconditional allegiance to the ruling party.
The UK prime minister, prior to calling a general election, authorises permanent secretaries (equivalent to secretaries in Bangladesh Civil Service) for pre-election contact with the main opposition parties to allow them to be informed about key departmental facts and let them apprise the civil servants of any policy changes likely in the event of a change of government. One may wonder whether that would ever be possible in Bangladesh.
As the government of the day is expected to defend its policies to the electorate, the governing party is entitled to check with the departments that statements made on its behalf are factually correct and consistent with government policy. But at the same time, civil servants are also required to provide consistent factual information on request to candidates of all parties, as well as to organisations and members of the public, if possible, within 24 hours. It helps informed debates on policies, instead of mudslinging and promoting personality cults.
The UK election-time guideline for civil servants, updated in 2019, says all appointments requiring approval by the prime minister, and other civil service and public appointments likely to prove sensitive should be frozen until after the election. It restricts official exhibitions on a contentious policy or proposal during the election period. Films, video, and photographs from departmental libraries or sources are not allowed to be used by any political party. New government advertising campaigns in general remain postponed and running campaigns closed. In Bangladesh, the recent example of the Election Commission’s inability to discipline election officials of Gaibandha by-poll shows that even if they want to enforce any such guideline in the country, it is bound to fail due to the excessive politicisation of our civil service. And it’s not only our civil service – all such institutions, including the police and judiciary, have been hopelessly politicised.
Promising elections similar to the UK is hardly enough to allay the international community’s concerns about the future of our democracy, unless a national consensus on conducting it is reached soon, for which we need an honest dialogue.