What the EU Got Wrong About the Bangladesh Election

The headline emerging from the European Union's preliminary report into the Bangladesh election was that it was "credible and competently managed, marking a pivotal step towards restoring democratic governance and rule of law." A significant finding, and whilst one can quibble at the edges this is not a finding most independent observers would disagree with. Indeed, the credibility of the elections appears widely accepted in Bangladesh.

What was problematic, however, was the response given by the chair of the EU Observation Mission to the question that (almost) dominated the press conference in which it set out its findings, at least in terms of numbers of questions: What is the EU’s view on the exclusion of the Awami League from the election?

The answer given by the chairman of the EU observer mission was this: "We are here to observe the elections. What we are interested in is the process of elections. Transitional justice is an extremely painful and sensitive issue in many countries including many European countries. But of course the elections are a way to move forward and what we have observed in these elections is that they have been hugely competitive and the choice presented to the voters with these 2000 candidates have been considerable. This is really a way forward for Bangladesh democracy to go." (see: 38:41 mins)

Is it really possible for an election observation mission to sidestep the exclusion of a political party that has, for most of Bangladesh’s history, been either the largest or second-largest party in the country? Whatever one’s view on the justification for that exclusion, it is self-evident that the election was not fully inclusive. A substantial minority of voters were unable to cast their ballots for the party they traditionally support.

The EU appears reluctant even to acknowledge this obvious point.

The difficulty, perhaps, lies in the question the EU does not wish to confront directly: Was the exclusion of the Awami League justified? Only by taking a position on that issue can an observer mission coherently assess the quality of an election conducted in its absence.

Instead, the EU seems to have placed the issue of exclusion under the heading of “transitional justice” rather than “electoral fairness.” That distinction is unconvincing. The exclusion of a major political party is not merely a transitional justice matter; it goes to the heart of electoral inclusiveness and representativeness.

The inconsistency becomes clearer when considering the mission’s remarks on participation and turnout. The chair emphasised at the press conference that a key concern was whether “all relevant groups in society” were participating – including “all political groups and all social groups.” (see 43::44) Yet Awami League supporters constitute one of the country’s most significant political constituencies. Their effective exclusion from meaningful participation raises precisely the participation issue the mission claims to prioritise.

And whilst it is true that the contest between the BNP and Jamaat alliances was competitive -- competitiveness between two blocs does not necessarily equate to breadth of political choice. The assertion that the presence of 2,000 candidates ensured “considerable” choice misunderstands the nature of party-based electoral politics in Bangladesh. The election offered voters a contest largely between a centre-right and a religious-right formation. The socially liberal centre-left space traditionally occupied by the Awami League was absent.

An election can be competitive without being fully representative. To use a comparative example, an election in the United Kingdom confined to a choice between the Conservative Party and Reform UK might well be highly competitive -- but it would hardly be described as offering the electorate comprehensive political choice.

By declining to address the implications of exclusion directly, the EU risks appearing selective in its view of the Bangladesh election. A more intellectually honest approach would have been to acknowledge the lack of inclusiveness, explain its view on whether that exclusion was justified, and then assess the procedural quality of the election within that framework.

David Bergman is a journalist who has written widely on Bangladesh. He can be contacted on twitter @TheDavidBergman.