CHIEF adviser Professor Dr Muhammad Yunus, in his speech to the nation on the occasion of Victory Day, provided a ‘semi-clear’ idea about the probable timeframe for the next national parliamentary election. I term his given idea as ‘semi-clear’ because, although he broadly mentioned December 2025 to the first half of 2026 as the probable timeframe for the next parliamentary election, he somewhat obscured this timeframe by attaching phrases like ‘if’, ‘maybe’, and ‘could be’ to it. Despite this slight ambiguity, there is no doubt that the timeframe provided by the chief adviser has created enthusiasm and excitement among democracy-loving citizens and the leaders and activists of political parties waiting for the election.
The announcement of this timeframe is significant as certain statements by some advisors of the interim government were creating suspicion and confusion, especially among the leaders and activists of the political parties waiting for the election. Some began to think that this government was not entirely sincere about the election and was interested in extending its tenure. Various groups were creating an atmosphere by saying things like, ‘no election before reforms,’ ‘reforms first, then elections,’ ‘do you want reforms or elections?’, and ‘so many young lives were not sacrificed just for an election.’ Such statements were creating an impression that reforms and elections are mutually exclusive, that both cannot proceed simultaneously. However, this perception is incorrect. Rather, in a democratic system, reforms and elections can and should proceed simultaneously. Reform is an ongoing process with no definitive end. Completion of reforms implies the end of progress — a stagnation — which is by no means desirable. Therefore, in the current context of Bangladesh, what is needed is not the completion of all reforms but rather completing urgent reforms and swiftly initiating the election process.
The hopeful aspect is that the chief adviser has also hinted at the possibility of completing urgent reforms and promptly proceeding with elections. Not only that, he has also mentioned the formation of a commission to address this, which, according to his statement, will begin its work next month. Understanding the importance of this commission, he has stated that he will personally lead it. He has named this commission the ‘National Consensus Formation Commission.’ This commission will establish consensus on various issues by consulting political parties and other stakeholders. It will also swiftly build consensus on necessary decisions for the upcoming national parliamentary election and finalise the election timeframe based on this consensus. Clearly, through this commission, political parties will be able to engage appropriately with the interim government on the issues of reforms and elections, which is very important. This is important because any reform will only be sustainable if, and only if, political parties support those reforms. It can be said with certainty that no reform will be sustainable without the support and goodwill of political parties. Therefore, keeping political parties engaged with potential reforms is an essential matter.
In this situation, it is highly logical to expect that within the next two to three months, the ‘National Consensus Formation Commission’ will be able to present an electoral roadmap based on discussions with political parties and other stakeholders. Following that roadmap, the urgent reforms will be completed. Major political parties have been advocating for such a roadmap. It can be assumed that Professor Dr Muhammad Yunus’s interim government has understood and is giving importance to the message from political parties. It is hoped that the advisers of his government will also avoid using language in their statements that might create suspicion, despair or uncertainty about elections among political parties. Democracy cannot exist by ignoring political parties and politics.
Let me conclude with a note on democracy. The current interim government is undoubtedly a government supported by the people. In the recent past, such a popular government has rarely been seen in our country. Nonetheless, even by the most flexible definition, it is not possible to call this government a democratic one. The reasons are, first, this government is unelected, and second, its tenure is undefined or self-determined. Let me first address the second reason. A government in a parliamentary democracy is a government of accountability; it must continuously be accountable to the national parliament and, by extension, to the people. However, a democratic government must ultimately and directly be accountable to the people through elections after a specific period. This is why the tenure of a government is fixed in a democracy. A government with an indefinite tenure cannot be a democratic government in any way. And about the first reason: elections are an essential condition of democracy, although not a sufficient condition. That is, being elected does not automatically make a government democratic, but it provides the possibility and opportunity for it to become democratic. However, if a government is unelected, there is not even a minimal possibility or opportunity for it to be democratic. That is, although the presence of fair elections does not guarantee the existence of democracy in a society, the absence of fair elections ensures the non-existence of democracy in the society.
Although the interim government is not a democratic government, it is believed that this government will take pride in giving birth to a new democracy in Bangladesh by quickly holding a transparent and neutral election after completing urgent reforms. I find it logical to expect that by announcing an electoral roadmap, this government will inform the people about this impending birth of democracy. Such an expectation is shared by all democracy-loving people of the country and the political parties waiting for the election as well.
Ìý
Dr Mostofa Nazmul Mansur is a professor of philosophy at Jahangirnagar University.
