For the past several days, a breeze of joy and festivity has swept across the Dhaka University campus, emanating from the long-awaited election of the Dhaka University Central Students’ Union (Ducsu). Long regarded as the birthplace of democracy and secularism, the University of Dhaka had in recent years begun to lose its familiar glow. Yet today, there is hope. After many years, the Ducsu election has marked the beginning of this new chapter.
A century of interrupted tradition
Although the University of Dhaka was founded in 1921, the first central student union election did not take place until the academic year 1924–25. In the century since, Ducsu elections have been held only 37 times. Since the independence of Bangladesh, in the 54 years since 1971, just seven elections have been convened. Following the return to parliamentary democracy in 1991, Ducsu elections ceased entirely for nearly three decades, until one was finally held in 2019 alongside the hall union polls.
Thus, the 2025 election stands as only the second since 1990, unfolding in a dramatically new context. This explains the heightened sense of anticipation, anxiety, and excitement that swept through the campus. Ducsu elections are supposed to be an annual affair, much like Bangladesh’s six seasons. Yet, just as climate change has pushed our six seasons into the pages of textbooks, the annual rhythm of Ducsu elections has remained elusive.
Behind this absence lie deep vested interests. Those nurtured within Ducsu and Dhaka University often go on to shape the nation’s political destiny. For this reason, the Ducsu election is never a campus-limited matter; it resonates nationally. The vice-president’s title, once achieved, becomes a lifelong ornament, as evident in the legacy of former VPs who later became defining figures in Bangladesh’s history.
The official campaign period ended at 11 pm on September 7, the night before voting. This year, the campaign atmosphere stood out as mostly peaceful, with no major incidents of violence being reported. The campaigns themselves were a testament to youthful creativity. Students embraced digital platforms, social media, and even launched personal websites.
Some candidates designed leaflets shaped like buses, hand fans, maps, or globes; others distributed bookmarks, plants, or even World Cup–trophy-shaped flyers. One candidate handwrote each leaflet to underscore his promise of listening to students. Another embedded seeds in campaign leaflets so that, when discarded, they could germinate into plants.
These gestures reflected an environmental consciousness and an aspiration for a politics rooted in empathy, sustainability, and collective well-being. Such initiatives inspire the dream of a state built on harmony, brotherhood, and care for both society and environment. This is the kind of healthy political practice we want to see flourish.
Voting day
On Tuesday, September 9, voting was held from 8 am to 4 pm across eight centres under tight security. Nearly 40,000 registered voters and 471 candidates contested 28 central posts, including 62 women, a substantial rise in female participation compared to previous elections. Students formed long queues from early morning, many describing the day as their “first real democratic experience.”
The excitement was palpable. Yet the day was not without tensions. Allegations of vote rigging and pre-filled ballots surfaced. Abidul Islam Khan of Chhatra Dal lodged formal complaints, while he himself was also accused of violating electoral rules when entering a polling centre. Polling agents reported obstructions. Chhatra Dal leaders, including GS Nasir and President Rakibul Islam, raised concerns about teachers’ roles and alleged irregularities. Sporadic clashes and heated exchanges between Chhatra Dal and Chhatra Shibir supporters broke out at polling centres, requiring police intervention.
Reports also surfaced of candidates distributing slips within restricted zones, a clear violation of electoral rules. Tragedy struck when journalist Tarikul Islam Shibli died while covering the polls at Curzon Hall, casting a shadow over an otherwise spirited day.
Despite disruptions, turnout was striking. Nearly 700 votes were cast within the first hour at Ruqayyah Hall, and overall turnout reached over 80%, a figure that reflected immense student enthusiasm.
Results and disputes
By evening, counting was underway amid protests and mounting anxiety. The results were announced, with the Shibir-backed panel securing a landslide, winning 23 of the 28 central posts.
Other panels, including Chhatra Dal, independents, and leftist groups rejected the results outright, alleging engineering and fraud. Complaints included marked ballots, tampered CCTV, biased officials, and intimidation. Yet many questions remain unresolved.
If students received pre-marked ballots, why did they not raise objections immediately inside polling booths? If CCTV cameras were allegedly turned off, how did journalists
and polling agents continue observing the process? There is a need for proper investigation and discovering concrete evidence for these allegations to hold weight.
Nevertheless, the disputes underline an enduring truth: In every election there are winners and losers, but the credibility of the process is paramount. What must now be ensured is that Ducsu elections take place annually, on schedule, without fail.
This year’s manifestos reflected both diversity and ambition. The Islami Chhatra Shibir-backed United Student Alliance issued the longest manifesto, pledging 36 reforms, from abolishing “guest rooms” to resisting cultural “hegemony.” The BNP-supported Abid-Hamim-Mayed Council emphasized safe campuses, health insurance, and digitalization. The Anti-Discrimination Student Council stressed depoliticization, inclusion, and women-friendly facilities.
Independents led by Umama Fatema highlighted fair housing, research funding, and shielding academia from partisanship. The left-leaning Pratirodh Parishad championed equality, scholarships, anti-commercialization, and sustainability. Meanwhile, the Students’ Rights Council-backed Ducsu for Change proposed a concise 14-point plan including “one student, one bed,” subsidized meals, safer transport, research excellence, and fidelity to Liberation War values.
Such breadth reflected a maturing student political culture. The rise in female participation, the creativity of campaigns, and the diversity of manifestos all underscored a revived sense of democratic energy.
Despite disputes and shortcomings, the 2025 Ducsu election avoided major violence and rekindled a spirit of student participation unseen for decades. The University of Dhaka administration deserves credit for maintaining relative order, even as certain allegations remain unaddressed.
Yet the greatest lesson lies beyond winners and losers. The energy, creativity, and inclusivity displayed this year must be institutionalized through regular student elections. We want politics that is intellectual, innovative, and sustainable, not the stale politics that silences dissent, empowers musclemen, or manufactures housing crises to control students. We want politics that advocates for the interests of students and ordinary citizens, that uplifts rather than harms the nation, that advances collectively without excluding anyone.
This is the mindset we must nurture. The 2025 Ducsu election, for all its flaws, has reminded us that student politics remains the laboratory of democracy, a laboratory that inspires the nation at large. The challenge now is to ensure that this laboratory is not left idle for decades at a time, but remains active every year, as a living institution of Bangladesh’s democracy.
Nafew Sajed Joy is a Bangladeshi researcher, writer, and environmentalist. He holds Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Social Sciences from the University of Dhaka.
