The true foundation of democracy lies in the citizen’s freedom of opinion. The most important expression of this freedom is the vote. The legitimacy of democratic governance rests on the simple yet profound relationship: the state asks, and the people respond. However, when the very environment in which this question is asked is filled with fear, pressure, and uncertainty, and when the silent presence of weapons inside or outside polling stations subjugates individual conscience, voting ceases to be a free expression of opinion. It becomes a mere ceremonial endorsement of predetermined outcomes, and democracy exists only in name.
In Bangladesh, the presence of illegal firearms before elections is no longer a routine administrative matter. It raises existential questions about the state’s security, the effectiveness of law enforcement, and the everyday safety of ordinary citizens. During major national elections or festivals, when people travel to villages or towns to visit family, ensuring the safety of roads, markets, and public spaces is a fundamental responsibility of the state. Illegal weapons shatter this assurance. Therefore, pre-election weapon seizures should be regarded as a state responsibility—not targeting any political party, but serving the interest of the state and its citizens.
The reality of illegal arms in Bangladesh is multi-layered. It is not merely a law-and-order issue but is deeply entwined with politics, the economy, and social structures. Smuggled firearms across borders, locally manufactured pipe guns, weapons looted during political clashes, and international black markets collectively form a well-organized shadow economy. Security analysts repeatedly warn that the easier the access to arms, the greater the incidence of violence. From political activists to professional criminals, weapons become a potent tool for coercion.
The sources of illegal firearms are diverse. Smuggling across border regions, clandestine domestic production, looted law enforcement weapons, and international criminal networks—these sources intersect to form a robust network. While this network poses a challenge to a fragile state, it is not insurmountable if there is political will. Particularly alarming are looted state weapons, which directly challenge state authority when used against police stations, checkpoints, or law enforcement personnel. Former military and police officials have warned that without pre-election seizures, the level of electoral violence could spiral out of control.
In Bangladesh’s electoral reality, elections inherently involve competition, which often takes violent forms. This is driven by political distrust, the use of muscle power at the local level, and a culture of impunity. In many areas, using physical force to influence elections has become an accepted tactic. Past instances of unpunished violence have normalized the use of weapons, making pre-election seizures crucial. Without effective seizure operations, all administrative preparations by the Election Commission become futile.
Law enforcement agencies—including the police, RAB, BGB, and, if necessary, the military—are the backbone of state security. Yet recent events show that these personnel themselves often fall victim to attacks. Assaults on police or RAB personnel, obstruction during duty, seizure of firearms, and shootings all question the state’s control. Former Inspector Generals of Police have repeatedly emphasized that pre-election law enforcement operations cannot succeed without political neutrality and strong morale.
The main legislation governing firearms in Bangladesh is the Arms Act, 1878. This law imposes strict penalties for possessing, carrying, or using unlicensed weapons. Yet despite the strict legal framework, enforcement is weak. Case backlogs, lack of evidence, political influence, and judicial delays undermine the effectiveness of weapon seizures. Many illegal gun owners are aware that even if caught, punishment is uncertain. Security analysts stress that without special pre-election tribunals and fast-track justice, seizure operations cannot yield the desired outcomes.
Recent years have seen a significant portion of election-related violence tied directly to illegal firearms. Attacks on police, looting of weapons, clashes with RAB personnel, and harassment of military patrols vividly reveal the fragility of state security. Multiple incidents have shown that political programs hinder police duties, barricades are broken, and firearms are seized from law enforcement, later being used for criminal acts—often beyond the state’s control.
The Election Commission, constitutionally responsible for free, fair, and impartial elections, depends heavily on administration and law enforcement support in practice. When the proliferation of weapons is beyond control, implementing the Commission’s directives becomes difficult. A former commissioner observed that unless pre-election firearm seizures are strict and neutral, all preparations by the Commission are undermined. Security experts recommend regular public briefings on law enforcement conditions before elections to build public confidence.
Traditionally, military deployment during elections helps maintain temporary stability, but it is not a long-term solution. Defense analysts note that the military is primarily a supporting force; the police are responsible for internal law enforcement. When the proliferation of illegal arms exceeds police control, military intervention becomes necessary, exposing weaknesses in the civilian security structure.
Civil society plays a direct role in ensuring security. If pre-election weapon seizures are not transparent and accountable, public trust is undermined. Ordinary citizens—including returning villagers, working women, children, and the elderly—remain vulnerable during elections or festivals. Illegal weapons are a primary source of this fear.
During the mass protests of July–August 2024, 5,753 firearms and 651,609 rounds of ammunition were looted from police and law enforcement personnel. About 15% of these weapons and 30% of ammunition remain unaccounted for. Recovery operations have retrieved roughly 4,390 firearms and 394,000 rounds, yet over 1,300 weapons are still missing, being used in election-related violence and crimes. In Dhaka and district towns, illegal arms have been used in murders, robberies, and extortion; gang violence and shootouts have occurred in Chittagong. Pre-election joint operations by the police, RAB, BGB, and military units are underway to recover these weapons.
Major (Retd.) Rafiqul Islam, former army officer and security analyst, said, “State preparedness for pre-election firearm seizures is not optional; it is a fundamental condition for security. Coordinated deployment of law enforcement and military can significantly reduce violence, but the greater the political pressure, the more risky the operations.”
Dr. Samia Haque, firearms control policy analyst, remarked, “The Arms Act exists, but enforcement is weak. Preventing election violence requires not only law but social awareness and political commitment. To mitigate the risks of illegal weapons, political inefficiency must be addressed.”
Criminal analyst Advocate Harun Ar Rashid stated, “Around 70% of election-period violence is directly linked to illegal firearms. These incidents affect not only the electoral process but also public confidence in law enforcement. Each operation must be evidence-based; otherwise, recurrence is inevitable.”
Human rights and civil society representative Mrs. Leela Karim said, “Ensuring safe voting is the moral duty of the state. Only by providing citizens a secure environment can the integrity of democracy be maintained. The presence of illegal weapons threatens not just safety but fundamental human rights.”
International experience shows that pre-election arms control is a key state strategy. In Latin America, weapon surrender programs have succeeded; in parts of Africa, weak border control undermined outcomes; in Europe, strict licensing and ballistic databases have been effective in crime prevention. In India, election preparedness under the Model Code of Conduct includes pre-election weapon seizures, license verification, and monitoring political leaders and activists. Experiences from Sri Lanka and Kenya demonstrate that political will and effective law enforcement are essential for sustainable arms control.
The way forward for Bangladesh is clear. Comprehensive and neutral pre-election firearm seizures are imperative. Intelligence-based operations, coordination with Election Commission directives, police field experience, and, if necessary, military support must be integrated. Fast-track adjudication under the Arms Act, transparent licensing, enhanced police and RAB capacity, and politically uninfluenced investigations are critical.
Long-term, the greatest challenge is social and political culture. Sustainable solutions require internal discipline within political parties, public awareness, and ending the perception of weapons as a symbol of power. Civil society and the media must challenge entrenched practices, ask questions fearlessly, and re-establish elections as a celebration.
Pre-election firearm seizures are a test of state capacity. If the state can assure its citizens: “Go vote, there is no fear,” then democracy will have truly prevailed. If it fails, voting will remain mere formality. Weapon-free elections not only reduce violence but also symbolize state strength, rule of law, and trust in democracy. The combined responsibility of the police, military, Election Commission, and civil society is to restore this confidence.
Today, the question is singular: Can we ensure a fear-free election? The answer will determine the democratic future of Bangladesh.
-The writer is an Assistant Professor & Head, Department of Sociology, Rosey Mozammel Women’s Honours College.
