A Mandate is Never a Blank Cheque

The US midterm elections have delivered a sharp political message: Voters may give a party power, but they do not promise to keep it.

When daily life becomes harder, promises go unmet and leaders appear more focused on themselves than on the public, even a strong electoral coalition can begin to fracture.

North Carolina offered a vivid example. Roy Cooper, a popular former Democratic governor, defeated Republican Michael Whatley by nearly 20 points to win a Senate seat Republicans had held.

Cooper made the cost of living central to his campaign, promising to lower the price of essentials such as groceries and gas.

His victory shows how a candidate’s connection to voters’ immediate concerns can outweigh a state’s recent partisan pattern.

The nationwide results and voter polling reinforce the point. The Associated Press’s voter poll found widespread frustration over inflation and the economy, along with concern that Congress was not doing enough to check presidential power.

Many voters who backed Democrats were not expressing deep enthusiasm for the party; they were demanding a change in direction and stronger accountability. The poll also found that voters remained dissatisfied with both parties.

The results in Michigan and Texas add another lesson: When politicians turn xenophobia into a weapon, they may deepen division, but they cannot assume that fear will win votes.

In Michigan, Democrat Abdul El-Sayed became the first Muslim elected to the US Senate after a campaign in which prominent Republicans questioned his loyalty and made unsupported allegations linking him to extremist groups.

He won despite those attacks and a bruising campaign that also included serious debate over his views and policy agenda.

Texas saw a parallel struggle over anti-Muslim politics. In recent years, Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton targeted Muslim-led development in North Texas, Abbott declared the civil-rights group CAIR a terrorist organization, and state Republicans increasingly invoked “Sharia law” in political campaigns.

This year, Abbott lost to Gina Hinojosa and Paxton lost to James Talarico. Those results cannot be reduced to a single issue: affordability, corruption, and other concerns also shaped voters’ choices. But they do show that attacks on a religious minority do not guarantee political success.

Bangladesh should take these lessons seriously, while recognizing that its political system and circumstances differ from those of the United States.

The principle is universal: Public support is earned continuously. It cannot be treated as property that belongs to a party because of its history, identity, sacrifice, or past victory.

First, governments must make people’s daily lives better in ways they can see. Voters experience the economy through food prices, jobs, wages, transport, health care, and the cost of educating their children.

Macro-economic claims mean little when household budgets remain under pressure. A government that promises reform must show how those reforms will improve ordinary lives, and when. If relief is delayed, leaders should explain why and present a credible plan rather than offer slogans.

Second, corruption must be confronted visibly and consistently. Public trust erodes when powerful people appear to enjoy access, protection, or special treatment while ordinary citizens bear the cost of misrule.

Investigations must follow evidence, due process, and the same standards for allies and opponents. Anti-corruption campaigns lose legitimacy when they look selective.

Transparency in public procurement, party financing, and the use of state resources is not an administrative detail; it is part of the social contract between citizens and those who govern.

Third, a popular mandate should strengthen institutions, not weaken them. The AP poll’s finding that many US voters wanted Congress to do more to check presidential power points to a basic democratic expectation: No leader should be above scrutiny.

For Bangladesh, that means an effective Parliament, independent courts, credible election administration, a free press, and oversight bodies able to do their work without political interference. Strong institutions do not obstruct a government’s ability to govern.

They help ensure that power is exercised lawfully and that public confidence survives beyond one administration.

Fourth, leaders must protect equal citizenship. Religious or political identity should not be used to cast fellow citizens as outsiders or threats. Michigan and Texas demonstrate that Muslim voters and candidates are part of the democratic fabric, and that efforts to stigmatize a community can invite scrutiny rather than secure consent.

Bangladesh, too, must guard against turning religious, ethnic, or political differences into a test of who truly belongs. Rights must not depend on which party a citizen supports or which community they come from.

The American result also offers a caution to the winners. Voters can reject an incumbent without giving the opposition unlimited permission to rule.

A new government earns trust by governing with restraint, keeping promises, protecting rights, and accepting scrutiny. If it treats victory as immunity, it may turn hope into disappointment with remarkable speed.

For Bangladesh, the central lesson is not that one country’s party system predicts another’s election. It is that every mandate has conditions.

People expect leaders to deliver, to act with integrity and to respect the institutions that protect everyone’s rights. When those expectations are ignored, voters find a way to make their judgment heard.

No party should fear that judgment. It is the foundation of democratic accountability. The surest way to preserve public support is not to demand loyalty, but to deserve it.

Dr Mohammad Nakibur Rahman is a professor of Finance at the University of North Carolina and the US spokesperson for Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh.