Unfair election practices have persisted in Bangladesh since its independence. Vote buying, the use of muscle power, and various forms of manipulation are among the most common practices. In the past, these activities were carried out secretly; today, they are often conducted openly in front of citizens and even the administration.
Normally, democratic practices, legal frameworks, and institutions should grow stronger over time. Unfortunately, Bangladesh has experienced the opposite. Election-related irregularities have expanded both in scale and intensity, raising serious concerns about governance and accountability.
One major issue lies in the asset and income declarations submitted with nomination papers. Many candidates declare minimal assets and incomes- amounts insufficient to survive in a city like Dhaka. Yet these same individuals live in luxurious neighborhoods, reside in expensive apartments, and send their children to costly private institutions or abroad. In some cases, candidates declare incomes comparable to those of auto-rickshaw drivers. Such contradictions raise serious questions about the effectiveness of law enforcement and the credibility of accountability mechanisms.
Loan defaulters present another serious concern. A loan defaulter is someone who has failed to repay bank loans, effectively misusing depositors' money. Although taking a loan is legal, failure to repay it constitutes financial misconduct. Individuals who misuse money before gaining power cannot be expected to act responsibly afterward. The Representation of the People Order (RPO) clearly disqualifies loan defaulters from contesting elections. Yet, despite this provision, the Election Commission has allowed many loan defaulters to submit nominations. While some nominations have been cancelled, others remain valid due to court stay orders or successful appeals. Regardless of legal technicalities, a fundamental question remains: is it morally acceptable for a loan defaulter to contest an election?
Under the RPO, holding dual citizenship is a clear disqualification for election candidates. Despite this, many candidates with foreign citizenship continue to contest elections. Even if documentation is not publicly available, the reality is widely known. Candidates take advantage of weak verification systems, as it is difficult to detect dual citizenship within the short time allowed for scrutiny of nomination papers
The RPO sets statutory campaign spending limits, which remain widely regarded as unrealistic and routinely violated. Everyone knows that actual campaign expenses far exceed the legal ceiling, yet candidates manipulate paperwork to appear compliant. When individuals enter politics by violating the law, how can they be expected to uphold it? If lawmakers themselves break the law, what message does this send to ordinary citizens?
After the announcement of election schedules, the use of muscle power becomes increasingly visible-not only against opposition parties but also within political parties, where rival groups clash violently. This situation is unacceptable. Candidates claim they want to serve the nation, yet intimidation, violence, and even killings of activists reveal the opposite. Such actions cannot be considered a willingness to serve the nation. Worse still, many of these crimes are poorly investigated, and justice is either delayed or denied.
Citizens are left wondering how long they must wait for leaders who are truly qualified- leaders without dual citizenship, without bank default records, and without criminal backgrounds. While the absence of a conviction does not legally establish guilt, the public is often aware of the realities behind many cases.
Dual citizenship is another critical issue. Under the RPO, holding dual citizenship is a clear disqualification for election candidates. Despite this, many candidates with foreign citizenship continue to contest elections. Even if documentation is not publicly available, the reality is widely known. Candidates take advantage of weak verification systems, as it is difficult to detect dual citizenship within the short time allowed for scrutiny of nomination papers. While acquiring foreign citizenship is not itself a crime, contesting elections afterward is both illegal and unethical. A person who does not feel secure enough to remain solely a citizen of Bangladesh cannot genuinely represent its people.
Candidates with dual citizenship should be strictly prohibited from participating in any election. Furthermore, if dual citizenship is proven after a candidate has already won an election, the law should mandate immediate vacation of the seat. I also recommend amending the RPO to disqualify candidates whose children study abroad- except under recognized scholarships. If leaders cannot ensure a safe and high-quality education system for their own children at home, it reflects their failure to improve national conditions.
There is also a stark inequality in the application of tax laws. If an ordinary citizen provides false information in income or asset declarations to the National Board of Revenue (NBR), they face additional taxes and penalties. Yet powerful candidates with enormous wealth rarely face investigation. Little news emerges about inquiries into their financial records. Candidates spend vast sums during elections, but authorities rarely question the sources of these funds and do not pay tax on these earnings, whatever their form- donations, gifts, or others.
To justify this legally, candidates often claim that campaign money comes from crowdfunding or donations. Even if we assume this claim is true for the sake of argument, such income is not tax-free. Questions remain as to whether campaign funds are properly disclosed and taxed in accordance with NBR regulations in the subsequent assessment year- in this case, the 2026-27 tax year. If NBR officials investigate and seek explanations from all candidates equally, it would demonstrate that the law applies to everyone. Otherwise, the public will continue to believe that laws exist only for ordinary citizens, while the powerful enjoy immunity.
If certain individuals are truly above the law, then this should be stated openly. Pretending that everyone is equal before the law while practicing selective enforcement is nothing but deception. Citizens deserve transparency, fairness, and a legal system free from hypocrisy. Only then can we truly say that we live under the rule of law, not under illusion.
The writer is a member of Dhaka Taxes Bar Association
