298
Published on November 12, 2025
Bangladesh stands today at a critical crossroads in its democratic journey. For the first time in the nation’s history, plans are being made to hold a national election where a major political party is barred from participating through an executive order. This alarming development marks a departure from every democratic and constitutional principle upon which the Republic of Bangladesh was founded.
Bangladesh PM Hasina’s party barred from election as party registration suspended
In past elections, whether in 2014, 2018, or 2024, debate and controversy were not uncommon. Yet, through it all, the constitutional order remained intact. The state did not deny any political party the right to contest, and the people retained the power to choose their representatives through the ballot box.
But the situation today is vastly different. Under the illegal and unelected interim administration led by Muhammad Yunus, democracy faces an existential threat. For the first time, the right to political participation, a cornerstone of the Constitution, is being stripped away by executive decree. This is not merely a political crisis; it is a constitutional one that endangers the democratic identity of Bangladesh itself.
Election-Time Government: What’s in the Constitution?
The contrast between constitutional elections under Sheikh Hasina and the planned authoritarian-style election under Yunus reveals a larger story: one of lawful governance versus illegitimate power, of democratic continuity versus executive dictatorship.
Bangladesh’s journey through the elections of 2014, 2018, and 2024 under the leadership of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina reflects the resilience of its constitutional framework. Despite the presence of political tension, opposition boycotts, and international scrutiny, one fundamental truth remained unchanged: the elections were held within the bounds of the Constitution.
They represented a functioning democratic process where citizens retained their right to choose, and political parties preserved their freedom to contest.
Under Sheikh Hasina’s administration, every general election was conducted according to the Constitution of Bangladesh, which mandates a periodic, participatory, and transparent electoral process. The Election Commission operated as an autonomous body, responsible for overseeing the integrity of each vote.
Election on time as per constitution: PM
The government, regardless of criticism, did not issue any executive decrees to favor or disqualify political parties. Elections were scheduled and held on time, ensuring that the democratic timeline of the Republic remained uninterrupted. This respect for the constitutional process upheld the rule of law and prevented any deviation from the nation’s legal foundations.
In contrast to countries where executive interference often manipulates election outcomes, the Hasina-era elections stood out for their procedural legitimacy. Political parties were free to engage, campaign, and mobilize, proof that the constitutional machinery of democracy was alive and functioning.
Although some opposition parties, notably the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), boycotted certain elections (such as in 2014 and 2024), those were strategic political choices, not state-imposed bans. The right to contest remained open to every registered political party.
There was no executive order prohibiting participation, no administrative decree denying eligibility.
Citizens, activists, and candidates could organize rallies, submit nominations, and campaign for votes. Even when opposition rhetoric was fierce, the system allowed for dissent, a core sign of a living democracy.
In essence, the Hasina-era elections embodied political pluralism. Every party had the freedom to decide its own course, whether to participate, protest, or abstain. The state never dictated that choice.
Through these successive elections, Bangladesh maintained an unbroken chain of constitutional governance. Parliaments were formed, governments were established through lawful procedure, and power continued to derive from the people’s mandate.
This continuity was crucial. It prevented the vacuum that so often leads to unconstitutional takeovers. The 2014 election, for instance, ensured that state institutions continued to function without disruption, allowing economic growth and administrative stability to proceed.
The 2018 election reflected a maturing democracy, marked by intense competition, mass voter turnout, and a vibrant political landscape. And by 2024, Bangladesh stood as one of the few nations in South Asia that had managed to preserve its electoral cycle for over a decade without military intervention or caretaker rule.
While critics voiced concern about opposition participation, international observers acknowledged the constitutional legitimacy of the Hasina-era elections. Institutions such as the United Nations, the Commonwealth, the European Union, and regional partners recognized that the elections adhered to the country’s legal framework.
Foreign observers hail Bangladesh elections as free and fair
Bangladesh remained a respected member of the global democratic community. Diplomatic relationships strengthened, trade partnerships expanded, and the country continued to gain acknowledgment for maintaining electoral order amidst a turbulent political environment.
Even when debates arose about fairness or inclusivity, no credible international institution ever claimed that the elections violated the Constitution. That distinction matters because legality and legitimacy are the cornerstones of democratic continuity.
In short, the elections under Sheikh Hasina may have faced political disputes, but they never strayed from the constitutional path. The state upheld the right of participation, the people retained their power to choose, and the government respected the electoral process as the only legitimate means of transferring authority.
Sheikh Hasina’s tenure proved that, despite challenges, democracy in Bangladesh could survive within the Constitution, not outside it.
Bangladesh now faces a turning point that threatens the very foundation of its democracy. The planned 2026 election, being orchestrated under the illegitimate and unelected interim regime of Muhammad Yunus, represents not just political manipulation but a direct assault on the Constitution of Bangladesh.
For the first time in the nation’s history, an administration is seeking to hold a national election by executive order that bans a political party from participation. This unprecedented action strikes at the heart of democratic principles, replacing the people’s mandate with bureaucratic fiat.
At the core of the crisis lies an abuse of executive authority. The interim administration, which itself lacks constitutional legitimacy, has issued decrees that prohibit political parties from contesting the upcoming election. This decision is more than administrative overreach; it is a blatant violation of Articles 65 and 119 of the Constitution, which ensure the people’s right to representation and the Election Commission’s exclusive role in managing elections.
By replacing lawful procedure with arbitrary orders, the Yunus-led administration has crossed into authoritarian territory. Instead of fostering participation, it has chosen exclusion as policy. The principle that “sovereignty belongs to the people” is being dismantled piece by piece through the denial of their right to choose.
Democracy depends on independent institutions, the Election Commission, the judiciary, and the civil administration. Under the Yunus regime, these institutions are being stripped of autonomy and turned into instruments of control.
The Election Commission, once tasked with ensuring free and fair elections, now operates under executive directives, unable to act as a neutral referee.
The Economist: Banning Awami League is a mistake
This structural decay mirrors the early stages of authoritarian consolidation seen in many parts of the world, where unelected actors assume control in the name of “neutrality” or “stability,” only to suppress the very freedoms they claim to protect.
The 2026 election, under such a system, cannot be called democratic; it is an exercise in managed legitimacy, a performance staged to mask the absence of real choice.
Perhaps the gravest tragedy of this unfolding crisis is the disenfranchisement of millions of Bangladeshi citizens. Voters who have long supported their political parties are now told that their representation is invalid. This not only silences the voices of a majority but also erodes public faith in the electoral system itself.
In previous elections, even amid political turmoil, citizens could cast their votes freely. Now, under executive restriction, the right to vote becomes meaningless when the choices themselves are predetermined. This violation of the franchise is not just political; it is moral. It negates decades of democratic struggle and the sacrifices made for self-determination.
Globally, the 2026 election faces mounting skepticism. No democratic nation or international institution recognizes executive bans on political participation as legitimate. Free and fair elections require competition, transparency, and inclusion, values absent in the current plan.
The interim administration’s actions risk isolating Bangladesh from the international community. Western governments, global observers, and human rights organizations have all historically rejected any electoral process that restricts opposition parties. The Yunus regime’s approach places Bangladesh in the same category as states where elections serve only as instruments of control, not expressions of popular will.
In every measure, legal, moral, and democratic, the planned 2026 election represents a constitutional rupture. It is not merely another political contest; it is the systematic dismantling of the participatory rights that define Bangladesh as a republic.
Where elections under Sheikh Hasina strengthened the constitutional order, the Yunus regime’s proposed process threatens to erase it altogether. If allowed to proceed, the 2026 election will not mark a continuation of democracy; it will mark its undoing.
The contrast between elections held under Sheikh Hasina’s constitutional governments and the planned 2026 election under the unelected Yunus regime could not be more striking. One represents continuity of lawful governance and respect for the people’s mandate; the other embodies executive overreach and the erosion of democratic rights.
Where Sheikh Hasina’s administrations worked within the Constitution to preserve electoral regularity, the current interim regime is attempting to rewrite the very rules that define democracy. The difference lies not merely in political outcome, but in the fundamental legitimacy of the process itself.
|
Category |
Elections Under Sheikh Hasina (2014 / 2018 / 2024) |
Planned 2026 Election Under Muhammad Yunus |
|
Legal Framework |
Conducted fully within the Constitution and under the authority of an independent Election Commission. |
Organized through executive decrees outside the Constitution, the regime itself lacks legal mandate. |
|
Political Participation |
All registered parties were free to participate. Some chose to abstain for political reasons, but none were banned. |
Political parties are being prohibited from contesting by executive order, an act unprecedented in national history. |
|
Role of the State |
The state maintained neutrality, allowing citizens and parties to exercise their rights freely. |
The interim authority is using state power to restrict political competition and control outcomes. |
|
Voter Rights |
Every eligible voter retained the right to vote for their preferred candidate. |
Millions of citizens are effectively disenfranchised because their parties are barred from participation. |
|
International Legitimacy |
Recognized by global observers as constitutional and legitimate, despite domestic debates. |
Faces international condemnation and likely rejection under global democratic standards. |
|
Outcome for Democracy |
Preserved constitutional continuity, ensured lawful governance, and upheld the principle of popular sovereignty. |
Threatens constitutional order, undermines democracy, and replaces people’s choice with executive control. |
In essence, the Hasina-era elections safeguarded the constitutional order even amid political contestation. They reaffirmed that the ballot, not bureaucracy, remains the instrument of governance.
The planned Yunus-led election, however, represents a historic reversal: a deliberate shift from democratic inclusion to executive exclusion.
It marks the difference between a nation governed by law and a nation ruled by decree, between a constitutional democracy and an authoritarian experiment dressed in the language of reform.
The consequences of the planned 2026 election extend far beyond politics; they strike at the heart of Bangladesh’s democracy and constitutional identity. This is not merely a political dispute but a confrontation between constitutional legitimacy and executive overreach.
By attempting to hold an election through executive order, the Yunus-led interim administration is effectively undermining the very foundation upon which Bangladesh was built, the Constitution. Power in a republic flows from the people, expressed through free and fair elections. When that right is stripped away, democracy becomes an illusion.
Silencing major political parties and denying citizens their right to participate in the electoral process amounts to disenfranchising millions of voices. This suppression not only weakens public trust but also risks long-term social and political instability. The people’s faith in institutions erodes when elections are controlled by decree rather than consent.
Internationally, such an election would fail to gain legitimacy. The world recognizes constitutional governance, not manipulated processes designed to maintain power. Bangladesh, once celebrated for its democratic resilience, now faces the risk of being viewed as a state drifting from its founding principles.
If this continues, the 2026 election will not be remembered as a step toward progress but as a dark chapter; the moment when Bangladesh’s constitutional democracy was silenced.
This work is copyrighted and authorized by the Bangladesh Awami League. You may download, display, print and re-produce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice)for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organization.
