Electoral Process

According to Freedom House, an electoral process in a “free” country is marked by the fair election of the head of government and legislative body, and when these elections have legitimate frameworks and management to ensure such a fair election.   The electoral process for the head of government and legislative body is defined by the an accurate, non-discriminatory registration of voters and candidates, which includes enabling fair chance for minority or underrepresented candidates (ex. Female candidates). The candidates should all have an equal chance to advocate for themselves in the media and campaign without intimidation, as should the voters be able to cast ballots freely choose candidates without these pressures.  There should be a clear and fair framework for the election process through measures to ensure limited terms, the fair drawing of districts, universal suffrage, and transparency. Finally, the results should be honest and monitoring systems should be implemented to ensure that these aspects of the electoral process are respected and that elected officials are responsible for their actions. All these moving parts in the electoral process should be done in a timely manner without political motive/opportunity factoring into polling dates (Freedom House, 2018).

In cases where elections for regional, provincial, or state governors and/or other subnational executive officials differ significantly in conduct from national elections, does the conduct of the subnational elections reflect an opening toward improved political rights in the country, or, alternatively, a worsening of political rights?

Electoral Process as A Necessity

A legitimate electoral process is essential to the framework of a “free” country. Elected officials are the ones making legislative decisions on behalf of the constituency. Therefore, in order to ensure that the people are the primary voices in legislative decision making, the elected officials must be dependent on the people’s votes, which is only applicable in a fair/legitimate electoral process.

Electoral Government in Bangladesh

In BBC article “Clashes and boycott mar Bangladesh election”, Sadique covers the violent clashes on 2014 election day in Bangladesh. 18 people were killed on election day, not including those killed leading up to election day, and the scores of the polling station were burned. People were protesting the lack of contestation in Bangladeshi elections, as the opposition party, Bangladeshist National Party (BNP), was banned from taking part in elections. The neutral caretaker administration that held the elections since 1991 was eradicated in 2010 by the Awami League. Because of the lack of neutral regulation in the electoral process, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s party, Awami League, won their seats by default. There were reportedly over a hundred polling booths that were torched. Even without the destruction of polling results, there were barely any voters. In contrast to what used to be long lines of voters, there were only 25 voters in the Mipur district of the 25,000 registered voters. Those who did vote feared their safety (Sadique, 2014).

Well, this is another unsurprising article on Bangladesh’s failure to be a fully “free” country because of a corrupt administration. Bangladesh usually has a decent voter turnout, but by eliminating the regulatory bodies for the electoral process, the government has removed all purpose for voting. The main issue in this case is that the leading party had the power to remove regulatory structure, indicating a weak, unestablished, framework for the electoral process in Bangladesh.

The Guardian’s article “Bangladesh Rocked by Violence on Election Anniversary” discusses the violence one year after the 2014 elections mentioned in the first article (BBC) I studied. The leader of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, Khleda Zia, was besieged in her office by the police- one of the various factors that sparked violence on the streets of Bangladesh by party members. The conflict between Hasina’s Awami League and the BNP resulted in the killing of two BNP members. Similar clashes between the parties took place in the capital and towns across the country, with support of rallying from Khleda Zia. Many of the BNP leaders were charged or detained for election violence (Dhaka, 2015)

In both cases, prime minister Hasina refused to call for fresh elections.

There is a very clear structural problem which leaves the electoral process of Bangladesh vulnerable, a vulnerability which was perfectly taken advantage of by the Awami League. The lack of monitoring to implement a fair electoral process has been taken advantage of by the leading party and further increased tensions between them and the opposition party. The voters do not feel safe, and more importantly, even when they do vote, it is irrelevant to the actual results.  The way the entire electoral process in Bangladesh is implemented fails to reflect the electoral process of a free country because of the overbearing role of current government leaders and lack of effective regulation.

The electoral process in Bangladesh further supports my claim that Bangladesh’s legislative practices in themselves reflect those of a “free” country, but the behavior in positions of power combined with threatening social norms limit the country’s freedom.

Works Cited

Sadique, Mahfuz. “Clashes and Boycott Mar Bangladesh Election.” BBC News. January 05, 2014. Accessed October 26, 2018. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-25602436.

Dhaka, Agence France-Presse in. “Bangladesh Rocked by Violence on Election Anniversary.” The Guardian. January 05, 2015. Accessed October 26, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/05/bangladesh-violence-election-anniversary-khaleda-zia.

“Methodology: Freedom in the World 2018.” Methodology: Freedom in the World 2018 | Freedom House. April 19, 2018. Accessed October 26, 2018. https://freedomhouse.org/report/methodology-freedom-world-2018.

Functioning of Government According to Freedom House

Functioning of Government refers to the way government structures ensure the fair and accurate representation of constituent interests in the creation and implementation of policy.  Government functionality tests the legislative freedom that governments have- whether the government itself has the ability to create and implement legislature without overwhelming influence from non-state actors, whether the government itself abuses its power by ignoring the people’s interest, and whether the government is composed of fairly elected officials. Such an evaluation of government processes is calculated by analyzing the efforts put in place to prevent corruption, promote transparency, and ensure that fairly elected legislators can freely develop policy (Freedom House, 2018).  In other words, functioning of government refers to the different aspects, i.e. practices and actors, that contribute to how the government generates and regulates policy. It is the core of governance within a state.

Functioning of Government as A Necessity

The functioning of government is essential to having a “free” country- it defines the way policy is created and carried out. A government that functions corruptly, such as through interference from non-state, non-legislative actors, would completely undermine the role that the people have in the legislative process. The representation of interests of the citizens are essential to the definition of a free country. Without a government that functions to properly voice the requests of constituents, policy would be skewed by non-state actors and lack the interest of citizens, thus inhibiting the ability to be a truly free country. The people can only have control in their government if the structures of government enable their voices to be the leaders for legislators and procedure.

Functioning of Government in Bangladesh

Although there are many factors that contribute to evaluating the functioning of a government, the articles I studied surrounding leadership in Bangladesh are prime examples of how government functions are preventing their status as a “free” country.

The Guardian’s “Bangladesh’s PM rejects claims of repression: ‘I do politics for the people’” reports that the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, is denying claims that she is moving away from democracy and her governing behavior is becoming authoritarian.  Such accusations denied included unauthorized killings, arrest of activists, and restrictions on media (mostly from opposing parties). The military has reportedly been bought off by Hasina through increases in salary and budget, and in the process has become one of the biggest businesses in Bangladesh (Tisdall & Ridout, 2015).

Yes, the prime minister is just one person, and one person cannot accurately reflect the government as a whole. However, the prime minister, as the head of government in Bangladesh, arguably has the most power in the implementation of policy. The prime minister’s behavior, as well as considering the newfound embezzlement accusations against her predecessor, indicates an atmosphere of political corruption and inequality in Bangladesh as a whole. If the claims are true, then Hasina is asserting her own power in government through violence and illegal behavior at the expense of the power of the people.

New York Times article “Bangladesh Bank Chief Resigns After Cyber Theft of $81 Million” also sheds light on the possible corruption of a Bengali official.  The governor of Bangladesh’s central bank, Atiur Rahman, resigned and three of his staff members were fired after the claims. Two deputy bank governors and the Financial Institutions division secretary were also fired for claims that they kept the theft a secret from officials. The possibility to reclaim money as well as the reason why it took a month for this news to come out is unclear (Gladstone, 2016).

Again, I think that one case cannot define the political atmosphere in Bangladesh, but the more news that comes to light just adds onto this case of corrupt leadership. In addition to the oppression of opposition in politics, there seems to be a trend of the misuse of money within the government- embezzlement, missing money, paying off the military- and this is just from the limited information I’ve gotten from a handful of articles. I do not think that these can all be coincidences or just empty accusations.

On paper, Bangladesh is a “free” country, but it is when the leaders and social norms come into play that I can see the how the country is only “partly free”. The functioning of government in Bangladesh is filled with corruption and lacks transparency.

Works Cited

“Methodology: Freedom in the World 2018.” Methodology: Freedom in the World 2018 | Freedom House. April 19, 2018. Accessed October 19, 2018. https://freedomhouse.org/report/methodology-freedom-world-2018.

Gladstone, Rick. “Bangladesh Bank Chief Resigns After Cyber Theft of $81 Million.” The New York Times. January 19, 2018. Accessed October 19, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/world/asia/bangladesh-bank-chief-resigns-after-cyber-theft-of-81-million.html?rref=collection/timestopic/Bangladesh.

Tisdall, Simon, and Anna Ridout. “Bangladesh’s PM Rejects Claims of Repression: ‘I Do Politics for the People’.” The Guardian. September 21, 2015. Accessed October 19, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/21/bangladesh-prime-minister-rejects-accusations-of-authoritarian-rule.

Freedom of Expression of Belief

Freedom House measures the “freedom of expression of belief” of a country by scrutinizing the vocal and practical flexibility allotted within public and private spaces in regards to topics such as religion and politics, as well as the amount of government interference and penalties (if any) regarding the expression of such beliefs.¹

Breakdown:
A “free” country allows for free and independent media with (no to) limited amounts of direct and indirect attempts at government influence. Writers should not be limited by censorship or “libel, blasphemy, or security” laws that enable governments to arrest journalists who are critical of the government. In addition to the freedom of journalists and media outlets, communities and religious institutions in an ideally “free” country should freely practice their faith without fear of repercussion (ex. arrests or harassment) from authorities or non-state actors. The government should not attempt to influence or limit such practices by controlling religious materials/sermons, requiring religious education, or imposing control over religious leaders. Academia should also be open to different political and religious teachings without interference from government promoting political propaganda or punishment for challenging political views. ¹

The power of political discussion in public and private spaces, as well as through technological communication, without penalties or overbearing government censorship is essential to creating an environment that fosters free expression and belief.

The Importance of Freedom of Expression and Belief

A free country gives people the independence to control their words and actions (political rights and civil liberties), rather than the government having total control. Therefore, the freedom of expression and belief is at the core of a free country- this ability to express one’s beliefs allows for the development of policy/a political system that consistently reflects the voice of the people. The suppression of expression would completely contradict the idea of a “free country” by disabling the voice of the people in making their own decisions.

Freedom of Expression and Belief in Bangladesh

BBC news article “Bangladesh students attacked during Dhaka protest” describes the aftermath of a protest over road safety after the death of two students. By the seventh day of protests, violence ensued and 25 (number not confirmed, some argue 100) students were injured. The government responded by enacting a 24-hour mobile internet block while authorities responded by using tear gas and rubber bullets. There were also reports of journalists being attacked and their equipment destroyed.²

As discussed in my first blog post, I believe that Bangladesh’s laws themselves are those of a considerably “free” country, but the political corruption and societal norms limit the freedom in execution. The stifling of expression in the country is key to such limitations; the students are protesting a serious issue that has caused multiple fatalities, but instead of responding to the needs and demands, the government (based on the article) largely ignores the protests and just blocks the internet. This action reflects both the blatant ignoring of the people’s voice but also the power that the government has in controlling media. The backlash that students received also prove the lack of freedom of expression in Bangladesh because it reflects the lack of safety associated with actually exercising the right to opinions and peaceful protest. In this case, the government, authorities, and non-state actors threaten the full potential of freedom of expression and belief.

*                     *                      *                       *

Bangladesh has an established secular government in order to ensure the safety of all religious groups and prevent persecution, however the effectiveness of this decision in a majority Muslim nation is questioned in International Policy Digest’s “Bangladesh: Religious Freedom is Dead”. There has been a rise in attacks against religious minorities, journalists, and foreigners. For example, attackers in a bakery in Dhaka chose their victims based on who could not recite the Quran. In addition to the non-state practices that establish Islam as the dominant force, the Hasina government gave into the demands of Islamist group Hefazat-e-Islam in removing the Lady Justice Statue from the court house. Hefazat-e-Islam has also demanded blasphemy laws and make a mandatory religious education.³

Even though having a secular state is not essential to having a state with freedom of expression and belief, in this case, the prevalence of radical Muslim groups is a threat to the safety of the expression of other religious groups and minorities. Even though the country is secular, the discrimination and violence threaten and prevent the practice of minority religions.

Works Cited

1. “Methodology: Freedom in the World 2018.” Freedom House. April 19, 2018. Accessed October 06, 2018. https://freedomhouse.org/report/methodology-freedom-world-2018.
2. “Bangladesh Students Attacked during Dhaka Protest.” BBC News. August 04, 2018. Accessed October 05, 2018. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45069935?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c77jz3md7grt/bangladesh&link_location=live-reporting-story.
3. Ahmed, Zarif. “Bangladesh: Religious Freedom Is Dead.” International Policy Digest. August 08, 2017. Accessed October 05, 2018. https://intpolicydigest.org/2017/08/08/bangladesh-religious-freedom-is-dead/.