Free and fair election-myth or reality?

Ziauddin Choudhury

The hoopla and theatrics over the long nomination process now over, we enter the next exciting phase
of our general election—polling. Even though the parties now contesting the elections including the
government party have vowed to have peaceful campaigns and violence free elections, people have a
great sense of anxiety over them. This is because our past history of polls tells us that elections have
always been fraught with brawny violence and show of brute force, and there are telltale signs in the
street already that this election is not going to be a cake walk.

In the country’s forty-seven years of existence, general elections have been held ten times before, seven
under parliamentary government, and three under Presidential system. But even though elections have
been held at regular intervals (except for a two-year interregnum in 2006 when a parliamentary
government was supplanted by a military backed caretaker government), our political parties never
developed a code of peaceful election conduct. Rallies for one candidate or by one political party would
be targets of rampant attacks from other parties or supporters of other candidates. Police will either be
ineffective or simply not responsive in time to prevent such hooliganism, and they would often be
labelled as partisan because of their failure to protect the victims. Already random acts of aggression by
workers of one party on peaceful rallies of other parties are becoming quite frequent making one
wonder whether more dire acts of violence are lurking ahead. All this brings us to the arguable question,
can we have free and fair election when violence on any pretext can happen anywhere? What is the
guarantee that a voter will have unfettered access to the polling booth on election day, and that he or
she will come out unscathed?

Right to vote or exercise one’s right of franchise can be guaranteed by a constitution. But its protection
and implementation cannot be guaranteed without the authority of the state and cooperation of the
entities that participate in the process of election. It starts from the time the election process begins,
from candidate selection to campaigning to actual polling. This is a long-drawn process, it is
complicated, but at the end its success depends on how transparent and well managed it has been. The
elections are not judged by simply the results, but also by the integrity of the process and its acceptance
by people as fair and equitable.

The fairness of elections and the election process becomes more onerous in a multi-party democracy. In
such democracies the burden is not on the government alone, it is also on the participants. But just as
the government cannot discharge its obligations by creating a formal agency such as an Election
Commission to conduct the elections and asking other agencies to cooperate with the commission in
holding the elections, the participating parties also cannot discharge their responsibilities by only
nominating candidates. The government has to create a facilitating environment for the election
commission or board to hold free and fair elections, not by pious announcement. Similarly, the
participating political parties have to adhere to a conduct that avoids violence and muscle play in
campaign rallies.

There are several methods that have been applied in the past to frustrate free and fair elections,
whether these were held by political government or neutral caretaker. Elections have been rigged or
managed in several ways, but principally these are vote fraud or vote manipulation, voter suppression or
intimidation, and outright rigging. The last kind, of course, can be achieved through active help of polling
officials, and workers of the political party seeking to tilt the results.

Election fraud or vote manipulation is most common in countries that are dominated by a strongman
(usually seen in many African and Middle Eastern countries) backed by a powerful state sponsored
party. Typically results in elections in such so-called democracies are heavily skewed to the party in
power and the person holding the paramount office. The dominant party has always two thirds of
parliamentary seats. The other parties, referred to as “loyal opposition” are happy to get the seats
allotted to them, because they have a share of the pie, however small it may be.

Voter suppression or intimidation takes a little subtler form as it is done through a variety of means. This
can take the form of outright manipulation of voters list where voters from a certain part of a
constituency known to favor a particular political party suddenly disappear from the list. (This of course
happens when the opponent of that party is in power.) In other cases, voters who are typically from a
minority community, are threatened by powerful forces to refrain from voting, or are prevented from
voting by sheer force. (This happened in Raozan thana of Chittagong in 1979 parliamentary elections,
the one that I remember.)

But the subtlest way to manipulate an election is to have a pre-election arrangement where the
contesting parties have an understanding among themselves on the rules of contest. In this
arrangement constituencies are divided among the parties, and each party agrees not to undermine the
other parties by fielding candidates from its own party in a constituency “allocated” to the other party.
Such arrangements are best for a party that has control of the government, but it also favors others in
the game when the only objective of the contestants is gaining a political office. The contests then
become anything other than free and fair.

During the period preceding the nomination process when “talks” were held between the ruling party
and coalition of would-be contestants, it seemed that a general agreement or understanding on a game
plan for sharing would be reached. There would be elections, but these would be held under the dictum
of live and let live. BNP and its cohorts will have a share of the pie, not the whole pie. The ruling party
will have the largest chunk but will allow some crumbs to fall in the lap of the minions who are in the
same wagon. The voters will have votes, but the process will remain opaque to them. But who will shake
the boat when the passengers in it are all contestants in the same game?

Unfortunately, the events taking place right now in the country do not suggest that assumption of a pre-
election understanding are correct. Already opposition candidates are targets of hooliganism, physical
abuse, and harassment. Rallies are being disrupted, their supporters chased, and the candidates
themselves are being attacked while campaigning. It would seem that classic cases for vote suppression
and intimidation are being introduced well before the elections. If this is the beginning, where will it
end? Can police or the polling booth officials most of whom are hapless school teachers or low level
employees prevent musclemen storming the booths? The elections will be free or fair only when the
powers conducting the elections have fairness in mind and want to have fair play, not foul.