The European Union’s statement welcoming Bangladesh’s 12 February national elections and referendum as “genuinely competitive” and conducted in a “peaceful atmosphere” is not just inaccurate — it is an abdication of the EU’s own democratic principles.
It ignores the structural exclusions, the climate of fear, and the democratic distortions that shaped this election from start to finish. A credible international partner cannot selectively acknowledge facts while overlooking the very conditions its own observers identified as essential for democratic legitimacy.
On 11 January 2026, at a pre‑election press conference in Dhaka, EU Chief Observer Ivars Ijabs underscored that the EU’s assessment criteria centre on broad inclusion, credible voter participation, adherence to democratic norms, and an enabling environment in which all citizens can genuinely shape their political future.
By these very standards, the 12 February elections fell short on every fundamental benchmark the EU itself set for judging electoral integrity.
- The EU’s own pre‑election criteria emphasised broad political inclusion — a standard that was clearly not met:
The Bangladesh Election Commission’s cancellation of the Awami League’s registration removed the country’s largest political force from the ballot. This was not a procedural matter; it was a democratic rupture. The political field was deliberately and artificially narrowed, and as a result, millions of citizens were denied the opportunity to vote for their preferred political platform. An election cannot be “genuinely competitive” when a major party is banned. To describe such a process as “competitive” is to strip the term of any meaningful substance.
- The EU cannot claim credible voter participation when 40% of voters stayed home:
The EU asserts that “the people of Bangladesh exercised their democratic rights in large numbers,” yet the data tells a very different story. Over 40% of eligible voters did not cast a ballot, marking one of the steepest declines in participation in recent history. Turnout has plunged from 87.13% in 2008 to just 59.44% in 2026. This is not a sign of democratic enthusiasm — it is a clear expression of democratic withdrawal. Abstention on this scale is itself a political message, signalling distrust, fear, or rejection of a process many believed was predetermined.
- The EU’s criterion of “adherence to democratic norms” was largely absent:
Many candidates — including independents and smaller political parties — were unable to campaign as freely as contenders from the major political blocs. Several reported being attacked or obstructed by mobs aligned with rival candidates, severely limiting their ability to reach voters. At the same time, voters themselves were subjected to coercive cultural and religious pressure, amplified by the circulation of misleading religious narratives and distorted cultural materials designed to manipulate or frighten them. These conditions are the antithesis of democratic norms — and they directly contradict the EU’s own requirement for an electoral environment in which citizens can make informed choices free from intimidation or manipulation.
- The condition of “an enabling environment in which all citizens can genuinely shape their political future” was blatantly unmet:
The EU’s Chief Observer stressed that an inclusive election requires meaningful participation from women, ethnic and religious minorities, regional communities, and persons with disabilities. Yet in its own post‑election briefing, the EU acknowledged restricted political space for women, fear of mob attacks, and the persistent underrepresentation of indigenous and minority communities. These are not minor procedural flaws — they are structural barriers that directly undermine the integrity of the electoral environment. A “peaceful atmosphere” cannot be claimed when large segments of the population are too intimidated, too insecure, or too marginalised to vote freely. An election where people are afraid to vote is not an enabling environment — it is a suppressed one.
- The EU’s statement directly contradicts the findings of its own observers:
The EU Election Observation Mission itself reported localised political violence, fear‑driven voter behaviour, disinformation‑fuelled intimidation, and the persistent underrepresentation of marginalised groups. However, the official EU statement glosses over these documented shortcomings and instead presents a selective narrative. This disconnect between observation and conclusion undermines the credibility of the EU’s assessment and raises serious questions about the motivations behind such selective reporting.
- A democratic mandate cannot be built on silence, fear, and exclusion:
The EU’s statement overlooks the reality that millions were denied their political choice, vulnerable groups were discouraged or intimidated from voting, and the outcome was shaped by deep structural distortions rather than genuine public consent. If the EU is deeply committed to democratic principles, human rights, and the rule of law, it must apply those standards consistently — not selectively.
- The political outcome reflects exclusion, not renewal:
The 2026 election result cannot be described as a clean democratic transition. It is the product of the exclusion of a major political party, a sharply reduced turnout, a climate of fear among women and minority communities, and an ideological realignment that many voters could not choose freely. The BNP’s return to power and Jamaat‑e‑Islami’s emergence as the principal opposition do not signal a revitalised democratic landscape; they reflect a political order shaped by absence rather than genuine competition.
Conclusion
The EU’s portrayal of the 12 February elections sanitises a process marked by exclusion, fear, and structural inequality. A rights‑based and honest assessment must acknowledge that a major political party was banned, turnout collapsed, women and minority communities faced real security threats, and the EU’s own observers documented serious shortcomings that contradict the official narrative.
Democracy cannot be strengthened by overlooking those who were excluded, silenced, or too afraid to participate. Legitimacy cannot be manufactured through selective observation or diplomatic convenience. Bangladesh deserves — and its citizens are entitled to — an international response that is truthful, principled, and accountable to the very democratic standards the EU claims to uphold.
