'Even minor election allegations must be scrutinised and addressed'

As the country moves towards what could be the most consequential election in decades, Dr Md Abdul Alim, election specialist and former member of the Electoral Reform Commission, spoke with Monorom Polok of The Daily Star about the Election Commission’s readiness, the referendum process, and overall preparation for the poll.

How would you rate the steps taken by the Election Commission and the government to maintain law and order during the election? Do you think these measures are adequate?

If we look at past elections in Bangladesh, there was usually a clear pattern before the announcement of the schedule. Law enforcement agencies would carry out pre-election drives with three objectives: arresting miscreants who could disrupt the election environment, recovering illegal weapons, and ensuring that licensed arms were deposited at police stations. This time, we did not see such measures taken in advance. 

There was some discussion about drives after the shooting of Osman Hadi, but they did not appear well-planned. As a result, we are seeing some incidents from time to time. Although the situation is currently under control, this is a unique election. Some political parties are not participating, and there are known internal and external attempts to disrupt the process. From the beginning, it was clear that law and order would pose a different kind of challenge.

Many of us have been saying that law and order would be one of the biggest challenges during this election cycle. I feel this issue should have been addressed more comprehensively. What was needed was a Comprehensive Election Security Plan based on risk assessment. Once risks are identified, there must be a detailed plan for remedies. I see a gap here. Even if the situation is under control for now, there is no guarantee that it will not deteriorate. These precautions were necessary, but they are largely absent.

Some people are alleging that the government is supporting a particular party or group. Do you see any basis for such claims?

At this stage, it still appears to be an allegation—just that. These complaints are not coming from a single party; almost all parties are complaining against the Election Commission. This is not new. During past elections held under political governments, even ruling parties lodged complaints. Often, these allegations reflect political positioning rather than verifiable facts.

That said, elections are extremely sensitive when it comes to neutrality, freeness, and fairness. Even minor allegations must be investigated and scrutinised. The Election Commission has a responsibility to respond to complaints and regularly update all electoral stakeholders through an official channel, but we have not always seen a proper institutional response. Sometimes responses come informally through media briefings, but that is not enough.

For the sake of voters and public trust, responses should be written, clear, and public. Whether complaints come from BNP, Jamaat, NCP, or others, the EC should respond explicitly and publish it on the official channel. This would help voters understand its position and strengthen trust in the process. Such a mechanism is essential, because questions will continue right up to election day.

Recently, the public disclosure of candidates’ financial information generated public interest. Although the EC does not audit such information, do you think it should do so in the public interest?

From the Electoral Reform Commission, we recommended that, given the limited time before the election, verification should at least be done on a sampling basis, with the findings made public. Another important step has already been taken—a new provision has been added to the RPO allowing the EC to investigate and take action for up to five years after the election if a candidate submitted false information or concealed data in their affidavit. This means verification can also take place post-election.

However, full verification before an election is extremely difficult within such a short timeframe. My view is that sampling-based verification should be the first step. Second, the timeframe for verification should be extended so that a deeper review can be conducted before party symbol allocation and campaigning begin. Finally, the new legal provision allowing post-election scrutiny must be actively used.

Voters have a right to know their candidates—their assets, profession, and educational background. This information must be verified rigorously in the public interest.

The impact of government campaigning on the referendum is still limited, especially at the grassroots level. How do you see this? Also, does the government’s stated position in favour of a ‘Yes’ vote undermine its neutrality?

In recent days, I have seen some government campaigns involving the referendum, but it is true that they have not yet reached the grassroots. If they fail to do so, problems will arise.

This election is different because voters will cast two votes. If voting takes two minutes per person, and a booth is reserved for 600 voters, for instance, then even 80 percent turnout would require far more time than the nine hours available for this election. If the process is slow, voters may become frustrated by long queues and leave.

This means training is crucial. Assistant election officers must be well prepared. Voters must also enter the polling booth with their decisions already made. If they try reading and understanding the referendum questions while inside the booth, the process will slow down further.

During previous referendums, extensive campaigns were conducted. This time, political parties are more focused on the parliamentary election. Although BNP and Jamaat have called for a “Yes” vote, it needs to be communicated more widely. Parties must mobilise their grassroots activists.

As for the government’s position, in all three previous referendums, the then governments had actively campaigned for a “Yes” vote. This one is a reform government, with reform as its core mandate. It formed various reform commissions and held dialogue with political parties for consensus. I have not seen any major party openly campaigning for a “No” vote. In that context, seeking public support for reform is not unethical.

Even before campaigning has begun officially, electioneering is already visible on social media and in public spaces. There are also allegations that religion is being used in electioneering violating the code of conduct. Can the EC address these issues?

We have seen reports of fines and show-cause notices, but overall monitoring before the official campaign period remains weak. This is a longstanding pattern—enforcement often feels ad hoc.

With the formal allocation of party symbols approaching, which will mark the start of the campaign period, the EC should become much more proactive. Field-level officials must be instructed to monitor the code of conduct rigorously. Early enforcement is crucial to prevent violations from escalating once formal campaigning begins. The law allows for up to six months’ imprisonment and a fine of Tk 1.5 lakh for violations.

Social media will play a decisive role, of course. For the first time, it has been formally included in the code of conduct, yet we are already seeing AI-generated misinformation and digital propaganda. Strong monitoring is essential to prevent content that could incite violence.

The EC should form expert monitoring teams—possibly seat-based—to assess harmful language and misinformation. The code prohibits negative or attacking language and the sharing of unverified content. While it may be difficult for ordinary citizens to verify information, those who violate these rules, especially political actors, must still be held accountable.

As a member of the Electoral Reform Commission, can you tell us how many of your recommendations have actually been implemented? Are you satisfied with the progress so far?

We made around 250 recommendations. Some key proposals—such as the Election Commissioner Appointment Act and the Delimitation Act—have not yet been implemented. However, several important reforms have been incorporated into the RPO. These include recognising the army as part of law enforcement, requiring alliance candidates to use their own party symbols, and allowing an MP’s status to be cancelled for submitting false affidavits.

The “No Vote” option has not been revived as we proposed; it has been limited to single-candidate constituencies. Structural reforms such as establishing an Upper House in parliament or increasing women’s representation require constitutional amendments and depend on the referendum.

I am not fully satisfied, but I remain hopeful. Many recommendations could still be implemented after the election and the referendum process.