Since our country gained independence in 1971, the electoral system has undergone numerous changes, including coups and large-scale election rigging. At times, the country was governed by a president.
In 1991, the last military dictator, Hussain M Ershad, was ousted due to protests from major political parties -- the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Awami League. Since neither party trusted the other, they called for a neutral third party to organize elections, fearing that the elections would be rigged if their political opponent remained in power. This led to the establishment of the caretaker government.
The primary objective of the caretaker system was to ensure fair, non-partisan elections. In 1991, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), led by Khaleda Zia, won the first-ever election held under this system. However, after her election, she had declared the caretaker government system unconstitutional and sought to abolish it. In response to a strong opposition movement, the BNP reluctantly reinstated the caretaker government system in June 1996.
In June 1996, Sheikh Hasina was elected for the first time under the reinstated caretaker system, which had now been formally enshrined in the constitution. In 2001, Sheikh Hasina relinquished power to Khaleda Zia following a fair election under the caretaker government. In 2008, the Awami League government came to power with a full mandate.
In 2011, the Hasina-led government then declared the caretaker government system unconstitutional, following the Supreme Court's verdict, which cited the bitter experience of the one-eleven regime. Ultimately, the Supreme Court abolished the system due to its unconstitutional nature and concerns about a potential return to military rule through the caretaker government.
The main point is that we have all failed to establish a fair, general, and inclusive system for organizing elections to elect the representatives of our country throughout our history. In pursuit of this shared goal, we aim to devise a new system that prevents the emergence of autocratic regimes.
One of the essential components for organizing free and fair elections in the future is implementing a proportional representation (PR) system in the country's electoral process.
If the current system persists, new political parties will struggle to emerge
What is a proportional representation system?
It is a system in which, rather than electing representatives from specific constituencies, voters receive ballot papers featuring the logos of the political parties participating in the national election. The more votes a party receives nationwide, the more seats it secures in the national parliament.
In contrast, our current system elects representatives based on specific constituencies. For example, in 2001, the Awami League received 40.13% of the votes, while the BNP garnered 40.97%. Despite this similar level of support across the country, the BNP secured 193 seats in Parliament, while the Awami League obtained only 62 seats. The PR system not only aims to create a more inclusive parliament in the future but also serves a distinctive purpose for all citizens.
There have been calls for a more free, fair, inclusive, and transparent Bangladesh, which can only be achieved with new leadership and innovative ideas. New leadership is essential for the country; however, achieving this is challenging due to the considerable monopoly within the political system.
The Awami League is unlikely to succeed in the next general election. There is also the perception that, with minimal campaigning, the BNP may gain support. However, it is doubtful that they will bring about any meaningful changes to the country's structure that we have dreamed of for the last few months.
We need new political parties, especially those led by students and others. Unfortunately, their supporters are scattered across the country, making it nearly impossible for them to secure seats in Parliament under the current electoral system.
This is where the proportional PR electoral system comes into play. A significant portion of the younger generation is frustrated with traditional political parties like the BNP and Awami League, and they are unlikely to vote for them. Instead, they would prefer alternative candidates.
If the current system persists, new political parties will struggle to emerge. With a PR system, every single vote -- whether cast in Jessore, Sylhet, Rangpur, Chittagong, or Cox's Bazar -- will be counted. New political parties that receive votes will have a chance to enter Parliament, potentially transforming Bangladesh, enhancing accountability, and paving the way for a better future.
It also has several other benefits. In this system, there will be no monopolistic party in Parliament; instead, a balanced or national government will be present. As a result, implementing amendments in Parliament will be more challenging than ever, making any government less autocratic since they will not be able to create unjust laws anymore. Additionally, during the process of implementing amendments, there will be a need for national unity among all, which is definitely a positive aspect.
There have also been arguments suggesting that a proportional representation system would benefit the Awami League, as it might struggle to secure seats in Parliament due to the consequences of its actions. However, the moral question arises: if the people of the country vote for them and they maintain accountability, why shouldn’t they be given a chance? If people choose to boycott them, what’s the issue with that?
The underlying moral philosophy is that everyone should be treated equally, with a level playing field in national elections, regardless of what their party members have done. If the public supports them, they will be voted in; if not, they may never gain entry to Parliament.
Tasin Mahdi is a freelance contributor with a keen interest in international policy.
