Guardians of the ballot: When the Bangladesh Army stood between anxiety and assurance

Army personnel conduct a foot patrol in the Dhanmondi area before the 13th national parliamentary election and referendum. Photo: Rajib Dhar

As Bangladesh passed through one of the most heavily scrutinised electoral processes in its recent history, the Bangladesh Army found itself at the intersection of public anxiety and democratic anticipation. 

Professionally trained to wage wars and win them, it demonstrated the greater discipline of restraint—absorbing criticism, respecting constitutional boundaries, and helping create the conditions for a credible national vote.

Democracy is tested during elections. They measure not only the strength of political parties but also the maturity of institutions. In Bangladesh's recent electoral process, the most visible and scrutinised institution was the Bangladesh Army. 

At its core, the Army is built on a singular mission: to defend the sovereignty of the state, deter aggression, and, if necessary, fight and emerge victorious in war. Its doctrine is shaped by discipline, operational readiness, and professional excellence. 

Over the decades, it has attained international standards—both within the national defence framework and under the United Nations umbrella, where Bangladesh remains one of the largest and most respected troop-contributing nations. This professional identity must be kept in mind when evaluating its domestic role over the past 18 months.

Following the July uprising and the ensuing political turbulence, the Army was called upon to operate in support of civil authority. These were not classical military missions. They demanded not battlefield manoeuvres but measured

restraint; not combat strategy but coordination with police, magistracy, and civil administration. 

In a country of over 170 million people, where tens of thousands of polling centres operate simultaneously across 64 districts, election security becomes a logistical and psychological undertaking of enormous scale. In such a densely populated and politically charged environment, even minor disturbances can escalate rapidly. 

The most consequential action was what the Army chose not to do. Its silence in power became its loudest affirmation of constitutional loyalty.

The Army's role was neither to conduct elections nor to determine results. It was to create a secure environment in which civilian authorities could carry out their constitutional responsibilities without fear, intimidation, or systemic breakdown. Deterrence, in its purest sense, succeeds when force does not need to be applied. By that measure, the relative containment of widespread disorder during this electoral period carries significance.

Yet this period unfolded amid intense scrutiny and, at times, harsh criticism. In the age of digital immediacy, perception can overshadow nuance. Some voices, driven by suspicion or political motive, alleged dubious intentions, suggesting institutional alignment with the previously deposed regime. Such assertions require sober reflection. No large organisation is immune from controversy or misunderstanding. 

However, it is analytically unsound and fundamentally unfair to project isolated perceptions onto the collective character of a disciplined national institution. The central question is straightforward: did the Bangladesh Army seek to assume or exercise civil power? 

The observable record suggests otherwise. At no point did it suspend civilian processes, overstep constitutional boundaries, or attempt to exercise political authority. It operated under magistracy authority and within defined legal frameworks. Its posture remained supportive—not substitutive—of civilian governance.

The present Army Chief, though appointed during the previous regime, maintained professional continuity throughout the political transition. Critics interpreted certain actions through partisan lenses, yet professionalism in uniform is not defined by the government that appoints an officer; it is defined by loyalty to the Constitution. Leadership in such circumstances is often judged not by dramatic action but by disciplined restraint. In this instance, what the institution chose not to do spoke louder than any assertion of intent.

Bangladesh's distinguished peacekeeping record with the United Nations has cultivated a culture of disciplined engagement, respect for mandates, and adherence to rules of engagement. That institutional culture did not vanish domestically. Young officers and soldiers, trained for combat readiness, were required instead to demonstrate patience under provocation, neutrality amid polarisation, and composure under constant public scrutiny. 

They absorbed criticism without reaction, stood visibly without political expression, and executed their duties without theatrics. An army's character is revealed not only in battle but in restraint. In many regions of the world, democratic instability has followed when civil–military boundaries blurred. Bangladesh's recent experience presents a different narrative—one of institutional endurance without institutional ambition. That distinction deserves recognition.

Election security is not merely about physical deployment; it is about confidence. Voters must feel safe enough to participate. Political actors must believe that intimidation will not distort the process. Investors and international observers must perceive continuity and stability. In that delicate psychological space, the Army stood between anxiety and assurance. Its presence signalled that the state's institutional pillars remained intact, even amid heated political contestation. Criticism is natural—and necessary—in a democracy. However, criticism must be proportionate and evidence-based. A narrative of political ambition cannot be sustained when conduct consistently reflects constitutional restraint.

With the electoral chapter concluded, clarity of purpose is essential for both the Army and the government. For the Army, the priority must be a renewed focus on external defence readiness, operational preparedness, technological modernisation, and strategic capacity development. Professional military education must continue to evolve in response to emerging regional realities, while international credibility through peacekeeping and cooperation should be strengthened. Most importantly, strict constitutional neutrality must remain inviolable. Extended domestic engagement should remain exceptional, not habitual. The strength of a professional military lies in its readiness to address external contingencies—not in recurring involvement in the political sphere.

For the government, the path forward requires strengthening civilian law enforcement and administrative institutions so that reliance on military deployment becomes minimal. Transparent governance, reduced polarisation, and protection of the professional autonomy of the armed forces are essential for democratic consolidation. Democracy matures not when the military is frequently summoned, but when civilian institutions grow strong enough to function independently.

Bangladesh possesses a versatile and disciplined armed force. Beyond combat readiness, it has repeatedly demonstrated capacity in disaster response, engineering support, infrastructure development, and international peacekeeping. 

The optimal use of such a force lies in strategic empowerment—not political entanglement. Its professionalism, international reputation, and institutional discipline are national assets that must be preserved and strengthened, not strained by prolonged political exposure.

History will debate the political narratives of this electoral period. That is the nature of democracy. Yet beyond partisan interpretation stands an institutional fact: during a time of heightened uncertainty, the Bangladesh Army neither sought power nor exceeded its mandate. It remained loyal to its constitutional oath. In a democracy, true guardianship is not about exercising authority; it is about safeguarding the system within which authority operates. And in that disciplined restraint lies the quiet strength of an institution that chose stability over spectacle.

Maj Gen (Retd) Md Nazrul Islam is a former executive chairman of BEPZA, a retired Major General of the Bangladesh Army, and a PhD researcher on technology, workforce transformation, and industrial competitiveness.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.