The Case for Televised Debates

As Bangladesh approaches its February 2026 national election, a familiar paradox emerges. Voters face a consequential choice between BNP and Jamaat -- parties with fundamentally different visions for the nation's future. Yet ask ordinary citizens where these parties truly stand on healthcare reform, job creation, or climate policy, and you'll often encounter uncertainty rather than conviction.

This is not because voters are disengaged. It is because Bangladesh’s political communication eco-system is not designed to reward explanation. Rallies, slogans, press statements, and fragmented social media clips dominate the campaign landscape. These formats mobilize supporters, but they rarely help undecided voters compare policy positions calmly and systematically.

A series of nationally televised election debates could change that.

Voters Need Clarity, Not Rhetoric

Most voters are not searching for abstract ideological purity. They want practical answers.

How will each party tackle inflation while spurring economic growth? What concrete steps will expand healthcare access beyond urban centers? How will education quality improve for children in rural districts? Where do the parties stand on workplace equality for women, youth employment, climate adaptation, or Dhaka's suffocating traffic? What vision does each offer for energy security -- addressing load shedding, transitioning to renewable sources, and ensuring affordable electricity for industries and households alike?

BNP and Jamaat both speak to these concerns, but their positions are often communicated indirectly or selectively. Manifestos are dense and rarely read. Speeches are designed for loyal audiences. Media coverage tends to highlight conflict rather than substance. As a result, voters are left with impressions rather than understanding.

Televised debates impose a simple discipline: both parties must answer the same questions, in the same setting, before the same audience.

Wny Debates Matter Now

Well-designed debates serve three essential democratic purposes.

First, they force specificity. Parties must move beyond slogans and explain how policies would work, what they would cost, and what trade-offs they involve.

Second, they enable direct comparison. Voters can evaluate competing approaches to the economy, affordability, healthcare, education, employment, women’s empowerment, energy security, climate action, traffic congestion, and innovation -- issue by issue.

Third, they create accountability. Statements made in debates become public commitments that journalists, civil society, and citizens can revisit after the election.

In a political environment marked by polarization and mistrust, these functions are particularly valuable.

Tailored to the Bangladesh Context

Traditional debate structures -- moderators, prepared questions, timed responses -- have value. But Bangladesh's election debates should go further, embracing innovations that deepen engagement and broaden participation.

Live audience participation could ground discussions in reality. Imagine a small business owner asking about tax policy, a farmer questioning agricultural subsidies, or a nurse raising healthcare funding concerns. These voices carry authenticity that journalist questions, however well-crafted, cannot replicate.

Digital integration could transform passive viewership into active citizenship. Questions submitted through social media, WhatsApp, and call centers could be curated by an independent moderation team, ensuring geographic and demographic diversity. Millions who cannot attend in person could still shape the conversation.

Expert follow-ups could prevent evasion. After politicians answer questions on education or climate change, respected specialists -- chosen for credentials, not politics -- could pose targeted follow-up questions that probe feasibility and evidence without turning debates into academic exercises. This mechanism demands specificity and exposes hollow promises.

Rapid public polling, conducted through digital and IVR channels after each segment, could provide immediate feedback and encourage engagement, as long as results are clearly presented as indicative rather than predictive.

Inclusion must be designed, not assumed. A common concern is that televised debates may privilege urban, educated audiences. The majority of Bangladeshis -- particularly in rural areas -- deserve equal voice in this democratic exercise. This risk is real -- but manageable.

Debates should require clear, jargon-free Bangla. Community viewing centers in villages and informal settlements could provide collective watching experiences. Simultaneous radio broadcasting and social media streaming would extend reach dramatically.

Addressing the Skepticism

Critics argue that debates can become theatrical or confrontational. That risk exists. But clear rules, neutral moderation, equal time, and penalties for personal attacks can preserve seriousness.

Others worry that communication skills may overshadow substance. Yet debates reveal more than eloquence: they expose preparation, priorities, coherence, and respect for voters’ intelligence.

Yes, skilled politicians can dodge questions. But dodging becomes obvious when contrasted with substantive answers from opponents. Evasion itself becomes information for voters.

Yes, parties might initially resist such scrutiny. But public demand for transparency creates pressure. An independent organizing commission -- representing civil society, media, and electoral authorities -- could establish fair ground rules that protect against manipulation while ensuring both parties face equivalent challenges.

The goal isn't perfection. It's improvement over the current information environment where voters piece together understanding from partisan sources, unverified social media posts, and campaign advertisements designed to obscure as much as illuminate.

A Moment of Democratic Clarity

Bangladesh faces decisions with generational consequences. Economic policies adopted next year will shape job markets for decades. Climate strategies will determine whether coastal communities survive or disappear. Education investments will define whether Bangladesh competes globally or falls behind.

Voters making these choices deserve clarity. They deserve to see potential leaders defend their proposals against scrutiny. They deserve platforms where evasion carries cost and substance earns reward.

Other democracies recognize debates as essential democratic infrastructure, not optional extras. Bangladesh should too.

The February election will arrive regardless. The question is whether voters enter polling stations confused or informed, uncertain or clear-eyed about the choice before them.

Televised debates won't solve every problem with Bangladesh's political discourse. They won't eliminate partisanship or guarantee honesty. But they offer something increasingly rare: a structured opportunity for truth-testing, where claims meet challenges and voters can judge for themselves.

That opportunity -- that moment of democratic clarity -- is worth fighting for. Bangladesh's voters deserve nothing less.

Pial Islam leads pi STRATEGY as its Managing Partner.