Inside Bangladesh’s Hand-Picked Election Commission and Its Loyalty to Power

After the dramatic ouster of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in late 2024, Bangladesh’s interim government moved quickly to reconstitute the country’s Election Commission (EC). The decision was presented as a necessary institutional reset, a way to erase the outgoing government’s influence and restore public confidence in the electoral process. At the time, the argument resonated widely.

The previous commission was dissolved without delay, a new chief election commissioner was appointed, and official statements emphasized transparency and trust. Yet nearly six months later, those assurances appear increasingly hollow, mirroring the legitimacy concerns surrounding the unelected interim administration that continues to govern Bangladesh.

Opposition parties, civil society groups, and even voices within the state apparatus now openly question whether the restructured Election Commission can operate independently of the government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus. The controversy stems from the perception that the commission was not merely reformed, but carefully assembled to align with the political priorities of those currently in power.

A Commission Built by Decree

The reconstitution of the EC resulted in a five-member body headed by former civil servant AMM Nasir Uddin. The process was almost entirely executive-driven, with little to no meaningful consultation with major political parties. By most democratic standards, it was a closed and top-down exercise.

Government-aligned media attempted to frame the overhaul as a decisive break from past politicization. However, those claims quickly unraveled as observers noted that several appointees shared professional or ideological proximity to the interim leadership. From the outset, questions emerged about whether the commission would function as an autonomous constitutional body or as an extension of the new power structure.

Those concerns intensified when Nasir Uddin publicly stated that he was prepared to conduct elections “as per the wishes of the interim government.” In Bangladesh’s deeply polarized political environment, the remark carried serious weight. Election commissions are expected to operate according to constitutional mandates, not the preferences of unelected authorities. By signaling deference rather than institutional distance, the chief commissioner undermined the EC’s claim to independence almost immediately.

Since then, the commission’s actions have closely tracked the interim government’s agenda. Most notably, it has endorsed repeated delays in announcing a firm election timeline, despite constitutional expectations that elections should follow major political transitions within a defined period.

Reform Without a Clock

The Yunus administration has defended these delays by arguing that Bangladesh requires extensive institutional reform before credible elections can be held. These proposals, grouped under what officials describe as a “July Charter” of reforms, include changes to judicial oversight, executive authority, and electoral rules. The Election Commission has accepted this rationale, citing the need to establish a “level playing field” before voters return to the polls.

Critics counter that reform has become a moving target. While few dispute the need for improvements to Bangladesh’s democratic framework, the absence of clear timelines or benchmarks has fueled suspicion that reform is being used to justify prolonged unelected rule. Elections that, under some legal interpretations, should have occurred within months of Hasina’s removal are now projected as late as 2026.

Throughout this period, the Election Commission has not publicly challenged the delays or offered an independent assessment of how long reforms should reasonably take. Instead, its statements have largely echoed the interim government’s position, reinforcing perceptions that the body is awaiting political direction rather than exercising constitutional judgment.

The resulting uncertainty has unsettled multiple stakeholders. Business groups have warned of prolonged instability, while smaller political parties fear being trapped in an open-ended transition with no clear electoral horizon. Conflicting statements from different commissioners on potential timelines have only added to the sense of drift.

The Awami League Exclusion

The commission’s most consequential decision concerns its treatment of the Awami League, the party that dominated Bangladeshi politics for more than a decade under Hasina. Acting on decisions taken by the interim authorities, the Election Commission canceled the party’s registration, effectively barring it from contesting the next election.

Officials cited allegations against senior Awami League figures linked to violence during the 2024 protests. Supporters argue that accountability is essential for democratic renewal. Critics, however, describe the move as unprecedented and destabilizing. By excluding the country’s largest and most deeply rooted political force, they argue, the commission crossed the line from regulation into political engineering.

The Awami League has condemned the commission as “illegal” and accused it of serving a narrow clique around the interim leadership. Even some long-standing opponents of Hasina have privately expressed unease, warning that disenfranchising millions of voters risks hollowing out any future electoral mandate.

The broader issue is the precedent this decision sets. An election conducted without the participation of a major national party is unlikely to be viewed as fully representative, regardless of procedural safeguards.

As Bangladesh moves toward an uncertain electoral future, the Election Commission now sits at the center of a growing legitimacy crisis. Designed to act as a buffer between political power and the ballot, it is increasingly perceived as aligned with one side of the political equation. Without a visible reassertion of independence, through transparent decision-making, clear timelines, and inclusive processes, public skepticism is likely to deepen.

For now, the commission remains constitutionally empowered. Whether it ultimately answers to voters rather than to those governing in their name remains an open, and increasingly urgent, question.