The hoopla and theatrics over the long nomination process is now over, as we enter the next exciting phase of our general election: Polling.
Even though the parties now contesting the elections have vowed peaceful campaigns and violence-free elections, people still have a great sense of anxiety. This is because our past history of polls tells us that elections have always been fraught with brawny violence and show of brute force.
In the country’s 47 years of existence, general elections have been held ten times before. But even though elections have been held at regular intervals, our political parties never developed a code of peaceful election conduct.
Rallies for one candidate or by one political party would be targets of rampant attacks from other parties or supporters of other candidates.
Police will either be ineffective or simply not be responsive in time to prevent such hooliganism, and they would often be labelled as partisan because of their failure to protect the victims.
Already, random acts of aggression by workers of one party on peaceful rallies of other parties are becoming quite frequent, making one wonder whether direr acts of violence are lurking ahead. All this brings us to the question: Can we have a free and fair election when violence on any pretext can happen anywhere?
What is the guarantee that a voter will have unfettered access to the polling booth on election day, and that he or she will come out unscathed? Right to vote or exercise one’s right is guaranteed by a constitution -- but implementation cannot be guaranteed without the authority of the state, and cooperation of the entities that participate in the process of election.
The elections are not judged by simply the results, but also by the integrity of the process and its acceptance by people as fair and equitable. The fairness of elections, and the process, becomes more onerous in a multi-party democracy. In such democracies, the burden is not on the government alone, it is also on the participants.
But just as the government cannot discharge its obligations by creating a formal agency such as an election commission to conduct the elections and asking other agencies to cooperate with the commission in holding the elections, the participating bodies also cannot discharge their responsibilities by only nominating candidates.
The government has to facilitate a conducive environment for the Election Commission to hold free and fair elections, not by a pious announcement.
Similarly, the political parties have to adhere to a conduct that avoids violence and muscle in campaign rallies.
There are several methods that have been applied in the past to frustrate free and fair elections. Elections have been rigged or managed in several ways, but principally these are vote fraud or vote manipulation, voter suppression or intimidation, and outright rigging.
The last kind, of course, can be achieved through the active help of polling officials, and workers of the political party seeking to tilt the results. Election fraud or vote manipulation is most common in countries that are dominated by a strongman (usually seen in many African and Middle Eastern countries) backed by a powerful state-sponsored party. Typically, results in elections in such so-called democracies are heavily skewed to the party in power and the person holding the paramount office.
The dominant party has always two-thirds of parliamentary seats. The other parties, referred to as the “loyal opposition,” are happy to get the seats allotted to them, because they have a share of the pie, however small it may be. Voter suppression or intimidation takes a subtler form as it is done through a variety of means.
But the subtlest way to manipulate an election is to have a pre-election arrangement, where the contesting parties have an understanding amongst themselves on the rules of contest.
In this arrangement, constituencies are divided among the parties, and each party agrees not to undermine the other parties by fielding candidates from its own party in a constituency “allocated” to the other party.
Such arrangements are best for a party that has control of the government, but it also favours others in the game when the only objective of the contestants is gaining a political office. The contests then become anything other than free and fair.
During the period preceding the nomination process, when “talks” were held between the ruling party and coalition of would-be contestants, it seemed that a general agreement or understanding on a game plan for sharing would be reached.
There would be elections, but these would be held under the dictum of “live and let live.” The opposition and its cohorts will have a share of the pie, not the whole pie. The ruling party will have the largest chunk but will allow some crumbs to fall in the lap of the minions who are in the same wagon. The voters will have votes, but the process will remain opaque to them. But who will rock the boat when the passengers in it are all contestants in the same game?
Unfortunately, the events taking place right now in the country do not suggest that assumption of a pre-election understanding are correct. Already, opposition candidates have become targets of hooliganism. Rallies are being disrupted, their supporters chased, and the candidates themselves are being attacked while campaigning.
It would seem that classic cases for vote suppression and intimidation are being introduced well before the elections. If this is the beginning, where will it end? Can the police or the polling booth officials, most of whom are hapless school teachers or low-level employees, prevent muscle-men storming the booths?
The elections will be free or fair only when the powers conducting the elections have fairness in mind and want to have a fair play -- not foul.
Ziauddin Choudhury has worked in the higher civil service of Bangladesh early in his career, and later for the World Bank in the US.