Elections alone do not guarantee democracy. It needs functional institutions, civil liberties

Winning an election marks the commencement of a journey toward democracy; it does not automatically signify that a nation has become democratic. This distinction is critical yet often misunderstood in political discourse. In the contemporary world, democracy is under pressure. As of 2024, there are 91 countries under authoritarian rule, while only 88 are recognized as democratic states. If we narrow this further, just 29 of these democracies qualify as liberal democracies, characterized by consolidated institutions and robust civil liberties. 

In other words, the number of non-democratic governments worldwide currently exceeds the number of democratic ones. This global context is crucial for understanding the challenges and opportunities that Bangladesh faces.

As Bangladesh approaches another national election, set for February 12, 2026, the key question is whether the activities, rhetoric, and promises of political parties suggest any qualitative improvement in democratic governance. History and comparative experience suggest caution: we cannot assume that all political parties will suddenly become virtuous or civilized. Such transformations are rare in political systems anywhere in the world.

Illustration: TBS

Defining democracy: The foundation of the debate

To discuss the future of democracy in Bangladesh, we must first clarify what we mean by democracy. In its simplest form, democracy might be equated with the holding of elections where citizens cast their votes. But if elections alone define democracy, the picture is incomplete and potentially misleading. A deeper, institutionalized democracy requires regular elections, respect for civil and political liberties, and the presence of functional institutions capable of enforcing checks and balances. It is this broader definition that must guide our assessment.

An election-centered approach to democracy can generate a false sense of security. Holding an election does not automatically institutionalize democracy. Elections mark the beginning of a democratic journey, not its culmination. They initiate processes of negotiation, compromise, and citizen engagement, all of which are necessary for a robust and enduring democratic system. Without these processes, elections remain a ritual, offering legitimacy to power without fostering accountability or citizen empowerment.

The current state of Bangladesh's democracy

If we attempt to "score" Bangladesh's democratic transition using a strict analytical framework, the results are sobering. Many post-colonial countries struggle to maintain democratic institutions in the face of mob-like pressures, populist demands, or concentrated power structures. By my assessment, Bangladesh's current democratic score would not exceed 40 to 45 out of 100. This is not merely an academic exercise; it reflects observable patterns in governance, institutional independence, and citizen empowerment.

Since 1991, Bangladesh has made repeated efforts to consolidate democracy through elections. However, the centralization of power, politicization of key institutions, and frequent undermining of civil liberties have limited progress. Institutions such as the Election Commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission, the judiciary, and the bureaucracy have increasingly come under the influence of ruling parties, weakening the structural underpinnings of democracy. When elections alone are treated as the defining measure of democratic health, the country risks a cyclical return to authoritarianism.

Elections and democratic trajectories

The upcoming February 2026 election exemplifies the tension between electoral processes and democratic consolidation. On one hand, the election provides an opportunity to advance democratic norms. On the other hand, it raises the question of whether the resulting government will strengthen institutions or revert to centralized authority. If future parliaments rely solely on the electoral process, assuming that elections alone ensure democratic legitimacy—as was largely the case in the 1990s—the country could potentially drift back toward authoritarianism within a decade or two.

Conversely, if political actors embrace negotiation, compromise, and institution-building, and if civil society and media exert consistent oversight, Bangladesh's democratic trajectory could be positively set within the next decade. 

In essence, democracy in Bangladesh is not guaranteed by elections alone; it depends on active engagement, both from political elites and from citizens who hold them accountable.

Why democracy matters: Accountability and rights

The appeal of democracy lies in accountability. In authoritarian systems, governments may promise development, economic growth, or stability, but these often come at the expense of human rights and freedoms. Citizens in authoritarian regimes typically have no mechanisms to remove underperforming leaders; dissent is restricted, and opposition may be suppressed violently. Democracy, by contrast, allows citizens to demand accountability, challenge poor governance, and exercise choice through institutionalized mechanisms.

Authoritarianism functions effectively only when all state institutions are subordinated. This includes law enforcement, the judiciary, civil administration, anti-corruption agencies, and human rights bodies. Over the past 15 to 16 years, Bangladesh has witnessed an increasing politicization of these institutions. Signals from the current political environment suggest that without deliberate institutional reforms, expecting political leaders to act virtuously is unrealistic.

Two approaches are possible. The first is hope-based: expecting leaders to act morally and responsibly. The second, far more pragmatic, is system-based: designing structures so that even self-interested or opportunistic leaders are constrained by institutions, incentive structures, and accountability mechanisms. For example, independent media scrutiny and anti-corruption oversight can compel leaders to behave appropriately, regardless of their personal disposition. Sustainable democracy, therefore, is less about the innate goodness of leaders and more about systemic resilience.

Bangladesh's democratic future depends critically on the establishment and enforcement of institutional checks and balances. These institutions—if robust—limit the capacity of leaders to engage in harmful behaviors, reduce corruption, and prevent the abuse of power. When institutions are weak or politicized, governance rewards bad behavior, and democracy becomes fragile.

Citizen engagement is equally important. Electoral reforms, caretaker governments, and legal frameworks provide windows of opportunity, but without grassroots participation, civil society activism, and media vigilance, democratic gains are short-lived. Historical experience in Bangladesh and comparable countries indicates that unlinked reforms typically endure for no more than a decade.

Democracy thrives where:

1. Institutions are strong, independent, and capable of enforcing checks and balances.
    
2. Incentive structures compel leaders to act within defined ethical and legal boundaries.
    
3. Civil society and media act as watchdogs, ensuring accountability.
    
4. Citizens actively participate in political processes, sustaining reforms and fostering a culture of transparency.

Absent these conditions, elections alone—even free and fair ones—cannot secure a sustainable democratic future.

Global trends and lessons for Bangladesh

Global trends further contextualize Bangladesh's challenge. In 2024, authoritarianism continues to grow. While 88 countries are democratic, 91 are authoritarian, with approximately 72 percent of the world's population living under non-democratic regimes. Even established democracies such as the United States have faced internal threats, as populist leaders attempt to weaken institutional barriers and norms. This underscores that democracy is neither automatic nor permanent; it requires vigilant maintenance.

Bangladesh must therefore approach democratic consolidation strategically, prioritizing institutional reforms, citizen engagement, and accountability mechanisms. Reliance on elections alone is insufficient. Without systemic safeguards, there is a real risk that future governments could slide back into authoritarian practices, centralizing power and undermining citizen freedoms.

Looking ahead: Strategic choices for Bangladesh

As we look ahead to 2050, several critical questions emerge: Will Bangladesh solidify an election-centric democracy, or will it foster a more comprehensive, institutionalized form of democracy? Can civil and political liberties be guaranteed consistently? Will institutions remain independent, or will politicization continue to undermine governance? The answers depend on both political actors and civil society. Political parties set the trajectory, but citizen vigilance, media scrutiny, and organized civil society are essential for ensuring that democracy becomes a durable system rather than a temporary formality.

The February 2026 election will not automatically answer these questions. What matters is how political actors, institutions, and citizens interact in its aftermath. If democratic negotiation, compromise, and institution-building occur, Bangladesh has the potential to create a more resilient democratic system within the next decade. If not, the country risks returning to authoritarian practices, even if elections are technically held.

It is unrealistic to expect that all political parties will suddenly act with virtue or foresight. Bangladesh's democratic journey is contingent not on the moral rectitude of leaders but on the design of its institutions and incentive structures. Authoritarianism can function without strong institutions or checks on power, but democracy requires them. Without independent institutions, engaged citizens, and vigilant media, elections alone will not secure a democratic future.

Bangladesh does have a future under democracy, but this future is neither automatic nor guaranteed. It requires careful planning, persistent effort, and collective responsibility. Democracy is a journey, not a destination, and the quality of that journey will determine whether Bangladesh can build a truly accountable, resilient, and participatory political system.

Ultimately, the question is not whether Bangladesh will hold elections—it almost certainly will—but whether it can use these elections as stepping stones to strengthen institutions, empower citizens, and secure a democratic future that endures well into the mid-21st century. If these conditions are met, democracy in Bangladesh will not be merely a procedural exercise; it will become a lived reality, capable of withstanding internal pressures and global authoritarian trends.

Abridged from an interview on 'TBS Future' hosted by TBS Executive Editor Shakawat Liton