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.