'Uncertainties remain over what kind of election it will be'

In TBS political talk show Kemon Sangsad Chai (What Kind of Parliament We Want), economist Debapriya Bhattacharya argues that while the 13th parliamentary election is taking place on 12 February, uncertainties over inclusion, governance and the role of old political and economic structures mean the outcome will test the country's democratic aspirations and capacity for meaningful reform. The show was hosted by Shakhawat Liton, executive editor of The Business Standard. Here is the excerpt from the discussion aired on Tuesday (February 10).

For so long, the government has been saying that this will be the best and most historic election. Yet, even two days before the election, there are several questions. So, does that mean this will not be the best and most historic election after all?

This will only be known from the outcome. The Honourable Chief Adviser may have an aspiration, but there can be a gap between aspiration and capability – and we are feeling that gap every day.

We see it in the candidate selection process, in the doubts about voter participation, in the way campaigning is happening, and in whether old practices – money, muscle and influence – are again becoming dominant. There are still many uncertainties: Will everyone be able to vote freely? If they do, will their votes be properly counted?

So, we cannot judge until the entire process is over.

What I can say is this: We seem to have moved from the uncertainty of whether the election will happen to a discussion about what kind of election it will be.

Since 1991, four elections – 1991, 1996, 2001, and 2008 – have generally been regarded as credible both domestically and internationally. Were the kinds of uncertainties and strategic calculations we are seeing today present during those elections?

No. Because the caretaker governments then were not active political actors. This time, however, the interim government is effectively a participant, particularly because of the National Consensus Commission and the referendum proposal, which have no precedent in past elections. The government has encouraged "Yes vote" using state mechanisms, even after the Election Commission initially objected.

The Election Commission itself is a weak point. I do not question their integrity, but in terms of power, capacity, experience, social standing, and public credibility, they are weaker than previous commissions.

As the election reaches its final stage, the debate over how inclusive it truly is has resurfaced with renewed intensity – how inclusive do you think this election really is?

"Inclusive" and "participatory" are almost enigmatic terms – they mean different things to different people.

For some, inclusivity simply means the participation of the former ruling party (Awami League). For others, it means whether all citizens – women, minorities, Dalits, Hijra communities, Urdu-speaking people, indigenous communities – can vote without barriers.

Both interpretations face problems. At this late stage, arguing about Awami League's inclusion may not have much significance. Whether their supporters vote or abstain will itself shape the meaning of inclusion – because not voting consciously is also a form of participation.

I view "inclusion" dialectically – it has both positive and negative dimensions. And beyond party politics, larger structural barriers like money and muscle in elections remain under-discussed, which is unfair to voters.

Through all of this, what will the parliament formed through the election actually look like? Will it meet the new expectations centred on the parliament, or is it unrealistic to imagine that a new parliament and government will take us to a 'magical land' where everything falls perfectly into place?

We have often seen that excessive expectations can easily lead to disappointment. What is one positive realisation is clear: The people now understand that an election and a political transition are necessary. Even those criticising the process implicitly accept that a return to constitutional politics is needed.

We came out of a mass uprising and entered a kind of "laboratory period". Now we are returning to real politics. This will be a new benchmark, carrying the legacy of both the past political order and the last two years of interim rule.

We were promised a "new settlement." Young people inspired us to believe that old power structures – money, muscle, religious manipulation – would be dismantled, and that politics would be based on ethics, values, and a progressive economic and social agenda. But in reality, even those who advocated for this admit it has not happened.

So, my expectation is tempered – not idealistic, but grounded in experience.

If political parties lack internal democracy and financial transparency, and reforms over the years have barely succeeded, how realistic is it to expect the MPs we elect to build truly democratic political institutions – or achieve economic democracy?

It is not realistic. And we must acknowledge that this failure happened under the interim, anti-discrimination, post-uprising government – despite knowing that the root cause of inequality was the absence of democracy and a broken election system.

They knew that authoritarian concentration of power within the ruling party and family-based politics had crippled the state – yet they did not address this structurally.

Looking at the major parties' election promises – for example, a 5-8% GDP health budget and a projected tax-to-GDP ratio of 14-15% over the next decade – how realistic are these pledges in terms of financial capacity and feasibility?

These are precisely the two issues we highlighted in the citizen's platform.

Historically, our approach has been supply-driven – we build schools, hospitals, infrastructure – but we rarely focus on demand, meaning who actually gets the services.

When you say "we will provide education and health," it does not automatically mean that the most vulnerable people – those living in char lands, river erosion zones, hill tracts, or remote northern areas – will benefit. In many cases, inequality increases instead.

We built many school buildings, but did not ensure quality education. Today, less than 5% of students can get into Dhaka University. That tells you the failure of this model.

Second, where will the money come from? If you increase spending in one place, you must reduce it elsewhere – or raise more revenue. Parties do not explain this. We need an equilibrium model.

They talk about increasing the tax-GDP ratio, but they do not say that two-thirds of our tax currently comes from VAT. Does that mean more VAT burden on ordinary people? That is the same old system again.

Already, supply-driven commitments are being made – like distributing tablets or other items – even before planning. The suppliers are already prepared. This also influences election nominations, because the real cost in Bangladesh is not winning the election, but securing the nomination.

So, these promises remain part of the old system – supply-driven and supplier-driven.

However, there is one important proposal: mid-day meals in schools. A child who walks miles to school hungry cannot learn. We must fund this from our own resources, not depend on foreign charity. This requires social inclusion and proper management – otherwise half the food will be stolen or misused.

Ultimately, the solution lies in citizen accountability, transparency, and the role of the media.

Has the role of civil society, which you mentioned, come under question because of its participation in various commissions during the one-and-a-half-year interim government?

Civil society is not a single, unified entity – just as businesses are not, or media outlets are not. There is diversity within civil society, just as there is within religion or ideology.

We cannot take responsibility for everyone. The previous government also had its own "civil society".

Many who initially supported this government are now frustrated. You can see this in statements from TIB, energy experts, Bangladesh Bank advisors, NBR consultants, and others who worked in different reform bodies. Civil society took risks. It will continue to take risks.

Governments come and go; the country remains.