Tuesday, 14 October, 2025
Bangladesh is once again at a political crossroads. As the country prepares for its next national election in early February, a seemingly technical debate over the electoral system has suddenly assumed outsized significance. At the heart of this debate lies the contentious proposal for proportional representation (PR), a system that, while common in some parts of the world, has sparked intense criticism here for its potential to undermine direct democracy and voter accountability.
The controversy has come into sharp focus following statements by BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir on Sunday, October 12, in which he affirmed that the people of Bangladesh overwhelmingly favour direct elections over the PR system. Speaking at a memorial meeting organised by the Nationalist Like-minded Alliance at the Dhaka Reporters Unity, Fakhrul stressed that the PR push is being driven not by the broader political consensus or the National Reform Commission, but by a handful of parties such as Jamaat-e-Islami.
Fakhrul’s remarks underscore a fundamental tension in Bangladeshi politics: the struggle between preserving a system of direct accountability to voters and accommodating proposals for structural reforms that, while appearing modern and technocratic, may dilute this accountability. In a political environment still healing from years of authoritarian influence, this is no trivial question.
The PR System: Promise and Peril
Proportional representation is designed to allocate parliamentary seats according to a party’s share of the national vote, rather than through direct contests in individual constituencies. In theory, PR can make legislatures more reflective of the popular vote, potentially giving smaller parties a greater voice. In countries with deep political pluralism and robust institutions, PR can indeed promote inclusivity and broaden representation.
But the Bangladeshi context is markedly different. Critics—including Fakhrul and a range of political analysts—argue that PR could empower party hierarchies at the expense of voter influence. Under such a system, candidates are often chosen and seated by party elites rather than directly by constituents, weakening the vital link between elected representatives and the people they serve.
Fakhrul warned that the PR proposal “alienates voters from accountability,” a concern that resonates deeply in a country where democratic participation has been hard-won. For Bangladeshis accustomed to choosing local candidates who champion constituency-specific concerns, PR may appear as a formulaic abstraction that obscures individual responsibility and dilutes the principle of direct representation.
Political Timing and Public Sentiment
The timing of the PR debate is especially sensitive. Bangladesh is emerging from what Fakhrul describes as a 15-year “fascist” regime, a period during which democratic institutions were severely constrained. The interim authorities now have the urgent task of restoring a democratic environment and rebuilding public trust in the political process. Fakhrul highlighted that Nobel laureate Dr Muhammad Yunus, heading the National Consensus Commission, has introduced several proposals for electoral and political reform. These proposals are expected to be finalised on October 17.
For the BNP, the issue is not merely technical; it is existential. Fakhrul reiterated that the party fully supports genuine reforms, but it opposes what it sees as the imposition of a PR system that could manipulate voter influence and benefit entrenched elites. “The people want to vote directly for their representatives — not through any complex formula that can be manipulated by political elites,” he said. In other words, the debate is not simply about procedure but about safeguarding the very nature of democratic choice.
Public sentiment, as highlighted by Fakhrul, strongly favours direct elections. Opinion across urban and rural Bangladesh indicates a preference for representatives who can be held accountable personally for their performance in parliament. The PR proposal, though theoretically attractive to some political technocrats, faces scepticism because it could further distance elected officials from the electorate, undermining local governance and responsiveness.
Critics and a range of political analysts—argue that PR could empower party hierarchies at the expense of voter influence. Under such a system, candidates are often chosen and seated by party elites rather than directly by constituents, weakening the vital link between elected representatives and the people they serve.
The Role of Smaller Parties
While the PR system has its advocates, they remain a minority. Parties like Jamaat-e-Islami and a few smaller groups have been vocal in pushing for PR, arguing that it ensures fairer representation of all political voices. Yet, the reality of Bangladeshi politics complicates this claim. Critics contend that these smaller parties seek PR less out of principle and more as a strategy to secure disproportionate influence in parliament relative to their grassroots support. In a political landscape still dominated by the major parties—primarily the BNP and the Awami League—such manoeuvring risks distorting the democratic process rather than enhancing it.
Fakhrul’s criticism of PR highlights a core dilemma: reform that looks inclusive on paper may, in practice, empower unelected party elites and diminish the electoral voice of ordinary citizens. In a country that has endured years of political centralisation and patronage networks, this is a genuine concern.
The proportional representation debate is more than an academic exercise in electoral design; it is a flashpoint in Bangladesh’s ongoing struggle to consolidate democracy. The voices calling for PR, led by Jamaat-e-Islami and other minor parties, have ignited a national conversation about the nature of representation, voter accountability, and political reform.
Looking Ahead: February and Beyond
The urgency of the debate is compounded by the looming national election in February. Fakhrul has called for an early return to representative democracy, arguing that the country cannot afford to delay the election while experimenting with electoral formulas that might undermine public trust. “The current opportunity to reawaken Bangladesh and restore democracy must not be lost,” he emphasised.
Bangladeshis will soon confront a critical choice. They must decide whether to embrace a direct electoral system that ensures accountability to voters or to risk a PR-based system that, while theoretically equitable, could shift real power to party hierarchies. This choice will have lasting implications for political culture, governance, and public confidence in democratic institutions.
The PR debate also raises broader questions about reform in post-authoritarian contexts. Can structural changes, however well-intentioned, be introduced without jeopardising the hard-won gains of electoral democracy? Fakhrul’s insistence on direct elections serves as a cautionary reminder that reform cannot be pursued at the expense of legitimacy and public trust. In Bangladesh, the mechanics of elections are inseparable from the lived experience of democracy.
Last But Not Least
The proportional representation debate is more than an academic exercise in electoral design; it is a flashpoint in Bangladesh’s ongoing struggle to consolidate democracy. The voices calling for PR, led by Jamaat-e-Islami and other minor parties, have ignited a national conversation about the nature of representation, voter accountability, and political reform. Meanwhile, the BNP, as articulated by Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir, remains steadfast in defending direct elections as the foundation of a truly democratic society.
As the nation edges closer to February, policymakers, political leaders, and citizens alike face a critical test: to prioritise reform for its own sake, or to uphold the principles of direct representation that remain central to Bangladesh’s democratic identity. The choice is stark. Any misstep could jeopardise not only the upcoming election but also the fragile trust that underpins democratic governance in a country still emerging from years of political turbulence.
Bangladesh stands at a pivotal moment. How it navigates the PR debate may determine whether its next election strengthens democracy or introduces new vulnerabilities into a system still healing from decades of political upheaval. The eyes of the nation, and indeed the world, are watching.
( The writer is the Editor of THE BANGLADESH EXPRESS and the Founder Chairman of Bangladesh Journalists’ Foundation For Consumers & Investors-BJFCI. He may be reach at [email protected])
Comments
Bangladesh is once again at a political crossroads. As the country prepares for its next national election in early February, a seemingly technical debate over the electoral system has suddenly assumed outsized significance. At the heart of this debate lies the contentious proposal for proportional representation (PR), a system that, while common in some parts of the world, has sparked intense criticism here for its potential to undermine direct democracy and voter accountability.
The controversy has come into sharp focus following statements by BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir on Sunday, October 12, in which he affirmed that the people of Bangladesh overwhelmingly favour direct elections over the PR system. Speaking at a memorial meeting organised by the Nationalist Like-minded Alliance at the Dhaka Reporters Unity, Fakhrul stressed that the PR push is being driven not by the broader political consensus or the National Reform Commission, but by a handful of parties such as Jamaat-e-Islami.
Fakhrul’s remarks underscore a fundamental tension in Bangladeshi politics: the struggle between preserving a system of direct accountability to voters and accommodating proposals for structural reforms that, while appearing modern and technocratic, may dilute this accountability. In a political environment still healing from years of authoritarian influence, this is no trivial question.
The PR System: Promise and Peril
Proportional representation is designed to allocate parliamentary seats according to a party’s share of the national vote, rather than through direct contests in individual constituencies. In theory, PR can make legislatures more reflective of the popular vote, potentially giving smaller parties a greater voice. In countries with deep political pluralism and robust institutions, PR can indeed promote inclusivity and broaden representation.
But the Bangladeshi context is markedly different. Critics—including Fakhrul and a range of political analysts—argue that PR could empower party hierarchies at the expense of voter influence. Under such a system, candidates are often chosen and seated by party elites rather than directly by constituents, weakening the vital link between elected representatives and the people they serve.
Fakhrul warned that the PR proposal “alienates voters from accountability,” a concern that resonates deeply in a country where democratic participation has been hard-won. For Bangladeshis accustomed to choosing local candidates who champion constituency-specific concerns, PR may appear as a formulaic abstraction that obscures individual responsibility and dilutes the principle of direct representation.
Political Timing and Public Sentiment
The timing of the PR debate is especially sensitive. Bangladesh is emerging from what Fakhrul describes as a 15-year “fascist” regime, a period during which democratic institutions were severely constrained. The interim authorities now have the urgent task of restoring a democratic environment and rebuilding public trust in the political process. Fakhrul highlighted that Nobel laureate Dr Muhammad Yunus, heading the National Consensus Commission, has introduced several proposals for electoral and political reform. These proposals are expected to be finalised on October 17.
For the BNP, the issue is not merely technical; it is existential. Fakhrul reiterated that the party fully supports genuine reforms, but it opposes what it sees as the imposition of a PR system that could manipulate voter influence and benefit entrenched elites. “The people want to vote directly for their representatives — not through any complex formula that can be manipulated by political elites,” he said. In other words, the debate is not simply about procedure but about safeguarding the very nature of democratic choice.
Public sentiment, as highlighted by Fakhrul, strongly favours direct elections. Opinion across urban and rural Bangladesh indicates a preference for representatives who can be held accountable personally for their performance in parliament. The PR proposal, though theoretically attractive to some political technocrats, faces scepticism because it could further distance elected officials from the electorate, undermining local governance and responsiveness.
Critics and a range of political analysts—argue that PR could empower party hierarchies at the expense of voter influence. Under such a system, candidates are often chosen and seated by party elites rather than directly by constituents, weakening the vital link between elected representatives and the people they serve.
The Role of Smaller Parties
While the PR system has its advocates, they remain a minority. Parties like Jamaat-e-Islami and a few smaller groups have been vocal in pushing for PR, arguing that it ensures fairer representation of all political voices. Yet, the reality of Bangladeshi politics complicates this claim. Critics contend that these smaller parties seek PR less out of principle and more as a strategy to secure disproportionate influence in parliament relative to their grassroots support. In a political landscape still dominated by the major parties—primarily the BNP and the Awami League—such manoeuvring risks distorting the democratic process rather than enhancing it.
Fakhrul’s criticism of PR highlights a core dilemma: reform that looks inclusive on paper may, in practice, empower unelected party elites and diminish the electoral voice of ordinary citizens. In a country that has endured years of political centralisation and patronage networks, this is a genuine concern.
The proportional representation debate is more than an academic exercise in electoral design; it is a flashpoint in Bangladesh’s ongoing struggle to consolidate democracy. The voices calling for PR, led by Jamaat-e-Islami and other minor parties, have ignited a national conversation about the nature of representation, voter accountability, and political reform.
Looking Ahead: February and Beyond
The urgency of the debate is compounded by the looming national election in February. Fakhrul has called for an early return to representative democracy, arguing that the country cannot afford to delay the election while experimenting with electoral formulas that might undermine public trust. “The current opportunity to reawaken Bangladesh and restore democracy must not be lost,” he emphasised.
Bangladeshis will soon confront a critical choice. They must decide whether to embrace a direct electoral system that ensures accountability to voters or to risk a PR-based system that, while theoretically equitable, could shift real power to party hierarchies. This choice will have lasting implications for political culture, governance, and public confidence in democratic institutions.
The PR debate also raises broader questions about reform in post-authoritarian contexts. Can structural changes, however well-intentioned, be introduced without jeopardising the hard-won gains of electoral democracy? Fakhrul’s insistence on direct elections serves as a cautionary reminder that reform cannot be pursued at the expense of legitimacy and public trust. In Bangladesh, the mechanics of elections are inseparable from the lived experience of democracy.
Last But Not Least
The proportional representation debate is more than an academic exercise in electoral design; it is a flashpoint in Bangladesh’s ongoing struggle to consolidate democracy. The voices calling for PR, led by Jamaat-e-Islami and other minor parties, have ignited a national conversation about the nature of representation, voter accountability, and political reform. Meanwhile, the BNP, as articulated by Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir, remains steadfast in defending direct elections as the foundation of a truly democratic society.
As the nation edges closer to February, policymakers, political leaders, and citizens alike face a critical test: to prioritise reform for its own sake, or to uphold the principles of direct representation that remain central to Bangladesh’s democratic identity. The choice is stark. Any misstep could jeopardise not only the upcoming election but also the fragile trust that underpins democratic governance in a country still emerging from years of political turbulence.
Bangladesh stands at a pivotal moment. How it navigates the PR debate may determine whether its next election strengthens democracy or introduces new vulnerabilities into a system still healing from decades of political upheaval. The eyes of the nation, and indeed the world, are watching.
( The writer is the Editor of THE BANGLADESH EXPRESS and the Founder Chairman of Bangladesh Journalists’ Foundation For Consumers & Investors-BJFCI. He may be reach at [email protected])
Comments
