Transparency Tested: A Critical Review of Bangladesh’s 13th Parliamentary Election

By Minhaz Samad Chowdhury
Independent Human Rights Defender
Focus: State Violence, Political Rights, Minority Protection & Democratic Accountability in Bangladesh

---

The 13th Parliamentary Election marks a significant moment in Bangladesh’s democratic evolution. Elections are not merely procedural events; they are institutional tests of transparency, neutrality, and public trust. A detailed review of the election process reveals a complex picture — one where procedural mechanisms existed, yet substantive accountability and enforcement remained contested.

Procedural Transparency vs. Substantive Accountability

At a formal level, the election demonstrated several transparency-oriented measures:

• Public disclosure of candidate affidavits.
• Digital compilation and analysis of income and asset declarations.
• Structured constituency tracking across multiple seats.
• Participation of multiple political parties.
• Engagement of domestic and international observers.

These mechanisms reflect procedural openness. However, transparency is meaningful only when accompanied by verification and enforcement. The publication of asset and income declarations raises a critical question: were these disclosures independently audited and legally scrutinized?

Without systematic verification, public disclosure risks becoming symbolic rather than transformative.

Campaign Conduct: Regulation Without Enforcement

One of the most concerning findings relates to campaign conduct compliance. A vast majority of candidates reportedly violated election conduct rules. Alleged violations included:

• Use of unauthorized campaign materials.
• Destruction of opponents’ posters and banners.
• Obstruction of rival campaign agents.
• Excessive rallies beyond permitted limits.

Near-universal noncompliance suggests not isolated misconduct but structural enforcement weakness.

Campaign finance regulation presents similar concerns. Many candidates reportedly exceeded legal expenditure caps — in some cases substantially. Digital campaign spending, particularly on social media platforms, appeared largely unregulated.

If spending limits are not enforced, financial inequality becomes a determining factor in political competition, undermining the principle of equal democratic participation.

Election-Day Integrity: Reported Irregularities

Election-day transparency is the core test of democratic credibility. Reported irregularities in multiple constituencies included:

• Voter intimidation.
• Forced voting.
• Obstruction of polling agents.
• Allegations of fake ballot casting.
• Administrative inaction in certain cases.
• Temporary communication disruptions.

While irregularities were not universal, their recurrence across several constituencies signals systemic vulnerabilities. Electoral integrity requires not only access to polling centers but the protection of voter autonomy and administrative neutrality.

Institutional Neutrality and Media Balance

Democratic elections depend on the neutrality of state institutions. Allegations regarding:

• Partisan conduct by some polling officials,
• Limited law enforcement responsiveness in certain contexts,
• Unequal media visibility among political actors,

raise concerns about structural impartiality.

Media fairness is central to informed voter choice. When coverage appears disproportionate, the informational environment becomes asymmetrical — limiting equal political opportunity.

Representation and Structural Patterns

The composition of the newly elected Parliament reflects notable structural trends:

• Limited independent representation.
• Reduced female representation compared to previous cycles.
• High concentration of wealth among elected members.

While economic success is not disqualifying, excessive socio-economic concentration within legislative bodies may reduce representational diversity and inclusiveness.

Government Commitment: Formal vs. Substantive

It is important to acknowledge that:

• The election was conducted on schedule.
• Multiple political parties participated.
• Institutional frameworks were operational.

These reflect formal commitment to electoral procedure.

However, substantive commitment is measured by enforcement. Where violations are widespread but consequences are limited, public trust weakens.

Policy Reform Recommendations

To strengthen electoral transparency and democratic accountability, Bangladesh should consider:

1. Independent auditing of candidate asset declarations.
2. Real-time digital monitoring of campaign expenditures.
3. Enforceable sanctions for campaign conduct violations.
4. Strengthened legal protections for polling agents and observers.
5. Independent oversight of state media during election periods.
6. Institutional safeguards ensuring administrative neutrality.

Conclusion: A Democracy at a Crossroads

The 13th Parliamentary Election presents a hybrid reality — procedurally structured yet institutionally strained.

Democracy is not sustained by ritual alone. It requires enforcement, accountability, and trust. The true measure of this election lies not only in its outcome but in whether its lessons are embraced for institutional reform.

If transparency evolves from publication to verification — and from regulation to enforcement — Bangladesh can move closer to a democratic framework that reflects both constitutional aspiration and citizen expectation.

---

Author: Minhaz Samad Chowdhury
Independent Human Rights Defender
Bangladesh