Tuesday, 14 October, 2025
The debate over the proportional representation (PR) system has erupted into one of the most explosive flashpoints ahead of February’s general election, raising fears of a confrontation that could shape not only the electoral process but the very future of Bangladesh’s democracy.
BNP senior leader Professor Dr AZM Zahid Hossain on Friday launched a blistering attack on rival parties, accusing them of plotting to drag the country into chaos under the guise of introducing PR. “You are trying to drag the country into turmoil… What is your real objective? To ignite disorder nationwide. But remember, this is not the Bangladesh of the past — you cannot plunge the nation into anarchy at will,” he warned during a heated discussion programme in Dhaka.
In a sharp counterblast, Jamaat-e-Islami accused PR opponents of attempting to derail democracy and delay the February polls. Speaking at a rally at Chattogram’s historic Anderkilla Shahi Jame Mosque, Jamaat assistant secretary general Mohammad Shahjahan declared that the nation is “eager for a festive election,” dismissing claims that the party seeks to postpone the vote.
The PR system has quickly become a lightning rod, raising questions over whether Bangladesh can hold a truly free and fair election capable of transferring power to an elected government.
BNP and its allies insist the February election should proceed under the current constitutional framework, while Islamist alliances led by Jamaat-e-Islami are pushing for PR and even demanding a nationwide referendum, deepening the political divide.
Proportional representation is widely adopted across the globe — in Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, the Netherlands, Israel, South Africa, and many more — and is lauded for reflecting the diversity of voters’ preferences more accurately than the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system.
Yet, in Bangladesh, the debate is far more urgent than a technical discussion on electoral mechanics: it has become a battleground over fairness, legitimacy, and trust in politics.
Crucially, analysts argue that PR could eliminate some of the most entrenched electoral malpractices. Under FPTP, a strong candidate can field multiple proxy or fake independent candidates to control polling stations through loyal agents.
Candidates in constituencies often exploit muscle and money power, engage in bribery, manipulate ballots, and sometimes resort to violence — all to secure victory regardless of genuine voter support. In a PR system, they argue such manoeuvres would be largely impossible: a candidate cannot contest multiple seats, and the proportional allocation of votes diminishes the incentives for manipulation.
Historically, candidates could contest all 300 seats. The 1984 amendment to the Representation of the People Order (RPO), 1972, limited this to five seats, and a 2008 amendment reduced it further to three — adjustments made without clear rationale. PR would remove these loopholes entirely. Although introducing the system requires constitutional amendments, only a few targeted changes would suffice.
Timing, however, is critical. Legal experts warn that introducing PR requires careful planning, constitutional amendments, and adequate preparation by the Election Commission. Attempting such reforms months before an election could strain administrative capacity and undermine public confidence.
Opponents, however, argue this is precisely the intention: a tactical move to tilt the playing field. Proponents counter that without reform while representation remains flawed and unfair.
At its core, the PR debate is about trust as much as mechanics. Electoral systems shape incentives but do not alone create democratic culture. Reforms imposed unilaterally or behind closed doors risk contested legitimacy.
Conversely, a transparent, phased introduction, coupled with public education, constitutional clarity, and impartial election administration, could strengthen democracy, reduce tension, and restore faith in the electoral process.
As February approaches, the PR debate will determine whether every vote can truly count or whether the election will become another chapter in Bangladesh’s cycle of political confrontation.
The stakes could not be higher: it is not merely an electoral system on trial, but the credibility and future of Bangladesh’s democracy itself.
Comments
The debate over the proportional representation (PR) system has erupted into one of the most explosive flashpoints ahead of February’s general election, raising fears of a confrontation that could shape not only the electoral process but the very future of Bangladesh’s democracy.
BNP senior leader Professor Dr AZM Zahid Hossain on Friday launched a blistering attack on rival parties, accusing them of plotting to drag the country into chaos under the guise of introducing PR. “You are trying to drag the country into turmoil… What is your real objective? To ignite disorder nationwide. But remember, this is not the Bangladesh of the past — you cannot plunge the nation into anarchy at will,” he warned during a heated discussion programme in Dhaka.
In a sharp counterblast, Jamaat-e-Islami accused PR opponents of attempting to derail democracy and delay the February polls. Speaking at a rally at Chattogram’s historic Anderkilla Shahi Jame Mosque, Jamaat assistant secretary general Mohammad Shahjahan declared that the nation is “eager for a festive election,” dismissing claims that the party seeks to postpone the vote.
The PR system has quickly become a lightning rod, raising questions over whether Bangladesh can hold a truly free and fair election capable of transferring power to an elected government.
BNP and its allies insist the February election should proceed under the current constitutional framework, while Islamist alliances led by Jamaat-e-Islami are pushing for PR and even demanding a nationwide referendum, deepening the political divide.
Proportional representation is widely adopted across the globe — in Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, the Netherlands, Israel, South Africa, and many more — and is lauded for reflecting the diversity of voters’ preferences more accurately than the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system.
Yet, in Bangladesh, the debate is far more urgent than a technical discussion on electoral mechanics: it has become a battleground over fairness, legitimacy, and trust in politics.
Crucially, analysts argue that PR could eliminate some of the most entrenched electoral malpractices. Under FPTP, a strong candidate can field multiple proxy or fake independent candidates to control polling stations through loyal agents.
Candidates in constituencies often exploit muscle and money power, engage in bribery, manipulate ballots, and sometimes resort to violence — all to secure victory regardless of genuine voter support. In a PR system, they argue such manoeuvres would be largely impossible: a candidate cannot contest multiple seats, and the proportional allocation of votes diminishes the incentives for manipulation.
Historically, candidates could contest all 300 seats. The 1984 amendment to the Representation of the People Order (RPO), 1972, limited this to five seats, and a 2008 amendment reduced it further to three — adjustments made without clear rationale. PR would remove these loopholes entirely. Although introducing the system requires constitutional amendments, only a few targeted changes would suffice.
Timing, however, is critical. Legal experts warn that introducing PR requires careful planning, constitutional amendments, and adequate preparation by the Election Commission. Attempting such reforms months before an election could strain administrative capacity and undermine public confidence.
Opponents, however, argue this is precisely the intention: a tactical move to tilt the playing field. Proponents counter that without reform while representation remains flawed and unfair.
At its core, the PR debate is about trust as much as mechanics. Electoral systems shape incentives but do not alone create democratic culture. Reforms imposed unilaterally or behind closed doors risk contested legitimacy.
Conversely, a transparent, phased introduction, coupled with public education, constitutional clarity, and impartial election administration, could strengthen democracy, reduce tension, and restore faith in the electoral process.
As February approaches, the PR debate will determine whether every vote can truly count or whether the election will become another chapter in Bangladesh’s cycle of political confrontation.
The stakes could not be higher: it is not merely an electoral system on trial, but the credibility and future of Bangladesh’s democracy itself.
Comments
