Google Alert – Bangladesh Army
In this uncertain climate while mob doers are active, the military’s involvement emerges as the beacon of hope for ensuring free and fair elections. The military is the only institution capable of maintaining order and curbing the various criminal elements operating under party banners.
The military’s role in this crucial moment is not just a matter of internal security, it is essential for restoring political stability and earning international legitimacy. Their presence on polling day would act as a vital check on those who seek to undermine the democratic process, thereby ensuring that the will of the people prevails.
For decades, Bangladesh’s military has been deployed during elections, but its role has largely been symbolic and constrained. In most instances, the military’s presence was more a show of force than an effective safeguard. Their capacity to intervene was limited to the directives of the Deputy Commissioner (DC), the Returning Officer appointed by the Election Commission, often reflecting partisan interests. This structure effectively neutralized the military’s ability to prevent electoral fraud, intimidation, and vote-rigging. If Bangladesh hopes to restore credibility to its electoral process, it is imperative that the military be granted real authority, independence, and clear responsibilities in the 2026 election.
Bangladesh’s electoral history is marked by manipulation, boycotts, and engineered outcomes. The 2014 election saw a significant boycott by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), resulting in over half of the parliamentary seats being uncontested. International observers, including the European Union and the United States, refused to recognize the election as a fair and competitive process. In 2018, despite the opposition’s participation, the election was overshadowed by widespread allegations of ballot stuffing, voter intimidation, and the pre-election arrest of thousands of opposition workers. Even with the military deployed in uniform as a striking force , stationed far from the voting centers, the situation remained largely unchanged. Bound by instructions from the DCs and police superintendents loyal to the ruling Awami League (AL), the military’s role was reduced to mere observation, unable to prevent the electoral malpractices taking place.
As a key member of the International Polls Observer Team from the European Union, and having served as a political advisor to the German and Japanese Embassies, I have had the opportunity to observe Bangladesh’s national elections in 1991, 1996, 2001, 2008, 2014, and 2018. One consistent observation has been that while the military had boots on the ground, it lacked real power, except during the 1991 elections. In that instance, the military played a central role in ensuring a peaceful transition, but since then, their presence has been largely symbolic. This perception of a neutralized military, constrained by partisan oversight, has severely undermined public confidence in the electoral process and the military’s ability to safeguard democracy.
In the post-Sheikh Hasina era, the military finds itself in a precarious position, struggling with a deep trust deficit. Smear campaigns, often fueled by politically motivated actors and social media figures, have painted the military as either complicit or ineffective. Despite the magistracy power on ground, the military’s reluctance to intervene decisively in moments of unrest, such as during mob violence or protests, has only exacerbated this image. While many protesters, particularly students, played a significant role in the 2024 uprisings against Hasina’s regime, the military’s failure to act when necessary has invited further public criticism and accusations of indifference.
The consequences have been severe. According to Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB), between August 2024 and June 2025, political factions clashed 471 times, resulting in 121 deaths and more than 5,000 injuries. Episodes such as the violence in Gopalganj and the inadequate response to the Milestone School and College tragedy further damaged the military’s reputation. For ordinary Bangladeshis, the question became painfully clear: if soldiers are deployed on the ground but cannot prevent violence or fail to act transparently, then what is their true purpose?
More concerning, however, is the fact that, under current conditions, the military’s hands are tied at polling centers. Without prior approval from the DC, who also serves as the Returning Officer under the Election Commission’s oversight, soldiers cannot detain offenders or intervene in electoral fraud. This bureaucratic dependency undermines the military’s ability to act swiftly and decisively when electoral violations occur. Instead of protecting the sanctity of the vote, the military is relegated to observing while fraud, intimidation, and violence go unchecked.
Throughout Sheikh Hasina’s autocratic rule, elections were not safeguarded by the military but controlled by a partisan civil administration. Polling centers were dominated by ruling party activists, opposition voters were either intimidated or barred from voting, and ballots were cast under the heavy influence of state machinery. If the 2026 election is to avoid falling into the same trap, especially with a police force that is widely distrusted and weak, the military must be granted real authority. This goes beyond symbolic deployment; it means empowering the military to act independently, with arrest powers at polling stations, the authority to dismantle violent mobs, and jurisdiction over electoral fraud, from the campaign trail to the counting of votes.
Bangladesh’s political landscape is deeply polarized. One faction resists the holding of elections, opting for a continuation of the current political status quo, while the other demands timely elections and a peaceful transfer of power to whichever party secures the people’s mandate. In such a charged environment, the military cannot afford to be a passive observer for the sake of the people’s rights. Its neutrality must be demonstrated through action, not inaction. The military’s role in 2026 must be defined as protective, not political, with clear boundaries that ensure its actions are solely focused on securing the electoral process.
Critics have raised concerns that granting the military arrest powers could militarize politics, bringing about a return to the overreach seen in 2007. These concerns are valid. However, the alternative, having soldiers without authority while fraud and violence unfold, poses an even greater threat to stability. The solution lies in finding a balance: clearly defining the military’s role to secure the integrity of the electoral process, while ensuring robust oversight from domestic civil society and international observers.
This means granting the military jurisdiction over polling stations, with strict transparency requirements. Any intervention or arrests must be documented and communicated, subject to post-election review. The military should not replace the Election Commission but should serve as a safeguard, ensuring that its directives are upheld in practice.
There is a precedent for success. In 1991, after years of autocracy, the military played a constructive role in securing peaceful elections that restored parliamentary democracy. That moment demonstrated that the armed forces can be guardians of democracy without becoming its masters. The challenge for 2026 will be to replicate that balance in a far more complex environment.
Indeed, Bangladesh stands at a crossroads and if the military is again subordinated to partisan bureaucrats, the 2026 election risks becoming another chapter of mistrust, boycotts, and international criticism. Only by empowering the military with real authority can Bangladesh hope to restore credibility to its democratic process and avoid the mistakes of the past.
The writer is a political analyst, poet and author