Ever since the transitional government took office in early August last year, it has never shifted its focus from two priorities. First and foremost is holding a free and fair election that would allow power to transfer to a democratically elected government. Second is carrying out crucial reforms, with the hope that they will bind an incoming elected government to deliver better services to the people.
The Yunus-led administration has, on its part, offered a broad timeline for that election -- anytime between the end of 2025 and mid-2026 -- and has constituted numerous reform commissions tasked with crafting agendas on issues ranging from labour rights and women’s emancipation to constitutional amendments and inner-party democracy. Nearly all of these commissions have already submitted their reports to the government, paving the way for the next step: Building consensus on a minimum reform package by bringing all political stakeholders on board.
Problems arise when some quarters raise a flurry of questions: What does the nation need most -- elections or reforms? Do we want both simultaneously or one at a time? Should the reform process push electoral priority to the back burner? Follow-up queries abound as well: Which reforms, how extensive should they be, and what exactly constitutes an agreed-upon minimum?
Is it too much to ask for essential reforms before a national vote? Our democratic parties must reflect and look in the mirror. If past experience is any guide, they will recall how basic reform aspirations evaporated soon after the first post-autocracy election in 1991. People triumphed in toppling Ershad then -- and again against Hasina last July-August -- but without real reforms, they could not reap the full benefits of those victories. History has proven repeatedly that citizens should not gamble on empty promises only to be disappointed.
Reform or election is not a mutually exclusive choice; both can -- and should -- proceed in parallel
Reform or election is not a mutually exclusive choice; both can -- and should -- proceed in parallel. The government is moving in the right direction by engaging a National Consensus Commission to seek common ground with political parties on key reforms. Parties aspiring to power through the people’s vote must also demonstrate commitment to advancing at least some of these reform agendas.
It is only natural that the full menu of reforms will not be equally palatable to every party. Some proposals may seem too ambitious or utopian, not aligning with their particular brands of politics. That’s acceptable. Progress can still be made by selecting a subset of reforms on which parties can unite. But sidelining reforms or postponing them merely to speed up elections will not deliver the kind of democracy that the people of this country have long demanded -- and very much deserve.
Moving forward, the Election Commission should lay out an election roadmap as soon as possible, while the government continues to forge agreement on key reforms. Thanks to the reform commissions’ submitted reports, the administration now has plenty of options from which to craft a prioritized agenda. Political parties ought to examine these proposals seriously and determine which reforms they can realistically implement.
Ultimately, the debate over whether to hold elections first or enact reforms first does not hold water. It is not a question of one or the other, but of pursuing both.
Reaz Ahmad is Editor, Dhaka Tribune.
