Confrontational election politics shows that little has changed

It has been about a week since the window for official campaigning for the upcoming election opened, and things are already settling into a familiar pattern. The slogans sound updated, and social media is louder than ever. Still, the behaviour, language, and logic of competition remain largely unchanged. This does not feel like the start of a new chapter in politics, as many had expected after the uprising, but like a return to an old routine.

Recent incidents during electioneering supports this notion. With the election getting closer, personal attacks are frequently replacing serious debate, and symbolic insults are forming political message. These incidents are not trivial; they shape how politics is practised on the ground. When leaders speak without restraint, supporters get the message that restraint is optional, leading to the shift in political discourse from persuasion to dominance.

This change is already evident. In Sherpur, a Jamaat-e-Islami leader named Md Rezaul Karim died after sustaining critical injuries in clashes between activists of BNP and Jamaat. Even before this incident, there was a turn towards confrontation in campaigning: scuffles broke out between rival supporters and activists, and even alliance partners, over trifling matters. This suggests that what should have been a contest of ideas is turning, again, into a cycle of intimidation despite the changed hopes and dreams following the uprising.

The Liberation War has once again become a tool to be used to score political brownie points. Rather than serving as a common ground for national unity, it is being pulled into partisan disputes. Questions of loyalty and legitimacy are resurfacing. Identity politics is also playing a central role. The Jamaat-led alliance seems to be leaning heavily on anti-India sentiment as a campaign theme. Jamaat leaders have accused the BNP of making a deal with India. BNP has rejected the claim and responded in equally sharp language. These exchanges are not about foreign policy or national interest, but about mobilising fear and suspicion. India becomes a symbol rather than a subject of serious discussion—an external enemy, to avoid accountability for domestic failures.

Religion is also being used. Jamaat leaders have publicly claimed that those who vote for them will go to jannah. BNP has responded by saying that no party has the authority to issue entry to heaven and that such claims are tantamount to serious moral and religious violations. This exchange shows how far the campaign has drifted from democratic reasoning. Faith is being turned into a political incentive, insulting both religious sentiments and politics. It also places pressure on many voters instead of encouraging informed choice.

These messages spread quickly online, turning social media into a second battleground. Coordinated networks circulate false or misleading content. The goal is not always persuasion; often, it seems to be exhaustion. When people stop trusting what they see, they disengage. That disengagement benefits organised groups that rely on pressure rather than broad consent.

Online spaces are filled with memes and trolling, yet constructive discussion is largely absent. At the same time, distrust is reinforced by early claims of vote-rigging and fears of the capture of polling stations. BNP has urged supporters to reach polling centres early in the morning, even before voting begins. These concerns may be valid in some cases, but when raised in advance, they create panic and shape expectations in risky ways. Some voters decide that participation is pointless. Others prepare for confrontation. In both cases, confidence in the process weakens.

To be fair, this is not the most repressive or electorally disruptive period in the country’s history. Yet, the promise of a new political era was not about being slightly better than before. It was about doing politics differently. If old tactics continue to deliver results, parties will keep using them. If religious pressure, blaming foreign interference, or intimidation tactics continue to work, political reform will remain a dream. Real change requires more than new alliances or leadership. It requires breaking habits that reward division and aggression. Elections should be about choice, not fear. Faith should guide personal ethics, not determine ballots. Foreign relations deserve facts, and political competition should never cost lives.

For now, the promise of change remains a promise. What was described as an uprising in 2024 is beginning to look less like a turning point. The confrontational language, behaviour and logic of political actors during this electoral campaign season suggest that without a conscious effort to reset the tone, the nation risks rehearsing the very politics it once vowed to leave behind in the July uprising.

Azman Rahman is a political commentator.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own. 

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.