With the toppling of the Awami League-led government in Bangladesh after its 15-year stint in power, political parties have begun discussing the next round of elections in the country.
After numerous instances of rigging, fresh elections open up new possibilities for post-revolution Bangladesh and its democracy – Sheikh Hasina was elected prime minister for the fifth time in January in what was widely considered a compromised election.
Now, under the interim government led by Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Muhammad Yunus and the new election reform commission, proportional representation has emerged as a pivotal topic.
Proportional representation would ensure that each political party in an election has the number of representatives in parliament that reflects the number of votes its candidates receive.
Leaders from at least five political parties, including Jamaat-e-Islami – the largest Islamist party, have expressed strong support for this electoral system. Shafiqul Islam Masud, a member of Jamaat-e-Islami’s executive council, told this correspondent that the party supports a proportional representation system, which it believes better reflects democratic practices.
The Bangladesh Nationalist Party has publicly opposed it so far. The party’s reluctance is likely due to its perception as the “party-in-waiting” after the ouster of the Awami League-led government.
Following its political decimation, it will be difficult for the Awami League to participate in the next round of elections. Polls are expected in the next 18 months. In this vacuum, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party has a natural opportunity to emerge victorious.
During a public meeting on October 13, Bangladesh Nationalist Party Vice Chairman Asaduzzaman Ripon dismissed proportional representation as “impractical for Bangladesh”.
He said that any reforms in the election process should be based on practical considerations. “No ordinary person in Bangladesh understands what the PR system is,” he said. “So, proposing it for the next election is merely a fantasy.”
Yet, crucial questions have come to the fore. There is, of course, uncertainty over whether the Bangladesh Nationalist Party will struggle to secure an absolute majority under a proportional representation system. But more pertinently, is Bangladesh ready to implement such an electoral change?
Voting systems
Bangladesh elections follow the first-past-the-post system: the candidate with the most votes in a constituency secures a seat in parliament.
The political party that wins the most seats governs independently or in coalition with other parties to make up a parliamentary majority. This system grants the winner the whole reward, benefiting larger parties and marginalising smaller ones.
Proportional representation is recognised – at least in theory – for its inclusivity and fairness in representing voter preferences. It encourages electoral participation by providing smaller parties and minority groups a voice in the legislature.
Unlike the winner-takes-all approach of the first-past-the-post system, proportional representation allocates political power in proportion to voter support. elections are held among registered political parties rather than in individual constituencies. The entire country functions as a single constituency.
Parties can announce candidates well in advance of the election – typically three to six months beforehand. Alternatively, for ease of administration, they may use closed lists of candidates.
With the exception of a few top officials, the names of nominated candidates will remain unknown to party members until the results are announced.
Candidates do not campaign and the party centrally formulates its strategy, said election expert Tofail Ahmed.
Bangladesh scenario
Bangladesh has a unicameral 300-seat parliament plus 50 seats reserved for women – it is a single-house legislature unlike, for instance, India, which has Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
In the context of Bangladesh, consider this scenario where the four largest parties – the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, Awami League (if allowed to contest), the Jamaat-e-Islami and Jatiya Party – each nominate 300 candidates.
After voting and counting, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party receives 50% of the total votes cast, Awami League gets 30%, Jamaat 10% and Jatiya Party 10%.
In this case, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party would secure 150 out of 300 seats (50% of 300), the Awami League would get 90 seats (30% of 300), the Jamaat and the Jatiya Party would get 30 seats each – 10% of 300.
This is a simplified explanation and countries that have adopted this system have customised and nuanced versions.
For example, Israel, Turkey, Brazil, Spain, the Netherlands and Finland have a proportional system called party-list proportional representation system. Here, parties submit lists of candidates for election, or candidates announce their association with a political party – as seen in some open-list systems.
Election authorities allocate seats to each party based on the proportion of votes they receive. Voters can vote for parties, as in Spain, Turkey, and Israel (closed lists), or for individual candidates, whose votes are then aggregated to determine the party’s total, like in Finland, Brazil and the Netherlands.
Germany, South Korea, New Zealand and even Nepal have successfully implemented the mixed-member proportional representation approach.It combines local winner-takes-all elections with a compensatory tier featuring party lists, resulting in overall proportional representation.
Like proportional representation, mixed-member proportional representation is a principle and objective underlying several similar frameworks. In a standard mixed-member proportional system, two votes are cast: one for a candidate in a single-seat constituency and another for a political party.
Some countries use variations with a single vote. Legislative seats are filled first by the winning constituency candidates and then by party candidates according to the percentage of nationwide or region-wide votes each party receives.
Countries such as Malta and Ireland use the single transferable vote system. It is a multi-winner electoral system where each voter casts a single vote using a ranked-choice ballot.
Voters can rank candidates and if their preferred candidate is eliminated or elected with excess votes, their vote can be transferred based on their alternative preferences. This ensures that their vote contributes to electing a candidate they prefer over others still in contention.
More than 100 proportional representation or mixed-member proportional representation, according to the Electoral Reform Society. Less than 50 countries still implement the first-past-the-post system.
Challenges for Bangladesh
In Bangladesh, since independence in 1971, no party has secured a 50% majority. The past three elections of 2024, 2018, and 2014 under the Awami League can be excluded as there was rigging.
Elections held under partisan governments are also not part of this analysis. Instead, the focus is on four elections – 1991, 1996, 2001 and 2008 – that took place under a caretaker government system and are generally regarded as fairer than most.
In the 1991 election, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party received 30.81% votes, while Awami League garnered 30.08%. Jamaat-e-Islami got 12.13% votes and Jatiya Party 11.92%. Despite the close vote percentage, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party won 140 seats, Awami League got 88 seats, and the Jamaat 18 and Jatiya Party 35 seats.
In the 1996 election, the Awami League won 37.44% votes and 146 seats while the Bangladesh Nationalist Party received 33.61% votes and 116 seats. Jatiya Party got 16.4% votes and 32 seats while the Jamaat won 8.61% votes and three seats.
The 2001 election saw the Bangladesh Nationalist Party achieve 193 seats in parliament with 40.97% of the votes, while Awami League obtained 62 seats with 40.13%. Notably, Islami Jatiya Front won 14 seats with 7.25% of the votes, and Jamaat secured 17 seats with 4.28%. Jatiya Party managed just four seats with only 1.12% of the votes.
In the 2008 election, which many considered the most controversial, the Awami League partnered with the Jatiya Party while the Bangladesh Nationalist Party contested in alliance with the Jamaat. The Awami League won 230 seats with 48.% of the votes, while the Bangladesh Nationalist Party secured 30 seats with 32.5% of the vote share. Jatiya Party won 27 seats with 7% votes and the Jamaat won two seats with 4.7%.
Better chances
Numbers from these four elections show why the major parties are reluctant to adopt a proportional representation system. With the current first-past-the-post system, they have a significantly better chance of securing a parliamentary majority and maintaining their hold on governance and legislation.
It is, therefore, unsurprising that the Bangladesh Nationalist Party will strongly support maintaining the status quo in the electoral system. Smaller parties are engaging in discussions as equal stakeholders but the interim government will struggle to implement significant changes to the election system without the cooperation of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party.
There are also other challenges.
The citizens of Bangladesh are accustomed to the first-past-the-post system, often without fully understanding its mechanics. They know how to vote for a parliamentary candidate in their constituency and are familiar with the existing process.
The interim administration would have to quickly educate citizens about the complexities of a proportional representation system.
Additionally, the prevailing political culture in Bangladesh poses significant obstacles to compromise and power-sharing, both of which are essential for a functioning proportional representation system. The distrust between major political parties complicates coalition-building, which could exacerbate political tensions rather than ease them.
As a consequence, a shift to a proportional representation system is unlikely anytime soon, even in the aftermath of an uprising that brought down an autocratic regime.
Faisal Mahmud is a journalist based in Dhaka.
