Bangladesh in image crisis

Editorial
No matter how much the government rhetoric about a “normal”, “stable” and “regular” situation is being talked about in the run-up to the upcoming 13th parliamentary elections in Bangladesh, the reality is increasingly at odds with it. The most obvious and uncomfortable manifestation of this contradiction has been in the recent diplomatic developments, where international concerns about security and political stability are being expressed around Bangladesh. This is not an isolated incident, but rather a reflection of the country’s internal political reality, which has called into question the credibility of the elections and the overall trust in the state.

Security warnings in diplomacy are never symbolic. They are usually taken after a thorough assessment of the situation within the state. In Bangladesh, the issuance of such warnings or changes in the diplomatic system means that the country’s political environment is no longer considered as predictable and controllable as before. The tendency to deny this reality does not reduce the problem; rather, it intensifies it.

The main crisis in Bangladesh regarding elections is no longer just whether elections will take place. There is little doubt that elections will take place. The question is how meaningful, competitive, and credible those elections will be. The effective presence of opposition forces in the political arena is limited, there are various controls on campaigns and rallies, and questions are increasingly being raised among the public and observers about the impartiality of the administration and law enforcement agencies. As a result, elections risk being perceived as a process of power preservation rather than a democratic competition.

The concept of “free and fair elections” is important here. It is not a vague political slogan; rather, it is a set of clear internationally recognized standards. Article 21 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that the will of the people shall be the basis of state power, expressed in regular and genuine elections. This principle is made legally binding by Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which defines the right to vote not only as the opportunity to cast a ballot, but also as “a genuine opportunity to choose”, “an environment free from fear and coercion”, and “equal political competition”.

When elections are assessed according to these criteria, it is seen that elections are not limited to just polling day. Freedom of expression during the pre-election period, equal opportunities for political parties, freedom of the media, administrative impartiality, and security for opposition views are all integral parts of elections. In Bangladesh, structural weaknesses have been accumulating in these areas for a long time. As a result, the risk of elections being politically questionable, even if they are formally legitimate, is increasing.

Another important aspect is the climate of security and fear. While official statements claim that the law and order situation is under control, in reality, the past history of political violence, memories of election-related clashes, and current tense political discourse indicate an uncertain situation. When politics is sustained by fear, it cannot be called stability; rather, it is a suppressed instability that can explode at any moment. In such an environment, diplomatic and international concerns are not uncommon.

Another risky trend in Bangladesh’s political culture is the use of foreign policy and diplomacy as domestic political weapons. Irresponsible language in political discourse, disregard for diplomatic sensitivities, and the tendency to trivialize security issues are detrimental to the state in the long run. According to the Vienna Convention, ensuring the safety of diplomats and their families is a fundamental responsibility of the host state. Even the slightest perception of a deficiency in this responsibility undermines international trust.

The most worrying issue is the erosion of trust. Trust is a central asset in democracy. When people lose confidence in elections, political participation declines and the state becomes increasingly dependent on force. Similarly, when the international community loses confidence in a state’s political process, that state risks becoming diplomatically isolated. Investment, trade, development cooperation—everything is affected.

In Bangladesh, this crisis of confidence is not yet irreversible. But time is running out. It is essential to reframe elections not only as a constitutional obligation, but also as a credible democratic process. If international standards—which Bangladesh itself has acknowledged through various treaties and charters—are not implemented in practice, the results of the elections, while legal on paper, will not be politically acceptable.

Elevating the state above the party, ensuring the impartiality of the administration, effectively implementing the rights of expression and assembly, and breaking the culture of fear in the electoral environment—these should now be policy priorities. Otherwise, what awaits us is not just a controversial election; but a chapter in long-term political instability, where the biggest loss will be a complete loss of trust.

History proves that once trust is lost, rebuilding it is one of the most difficult tasks for a state. Bangladesh has not yet reached that stage, but the warning signs are clear. The question is, will the state heed those signals now, or will it have to pay a larger price later?

Editorial team