From Pledges to Practice: Political Inclusion & Democratic Accountability– Bangladesh’s Polls 2026

Section 7 of 17

Findings: Round Table

To provide a clear understanding of the political landscape ahead of the 2026 National Parliament Election, this study brings together the voices and stories shared during several regional roundtable discussions. These conversations took place in key areas like Rangpur, Sylhet, and Dhaka, connecting a wide range of people, including religious and ethnic minorities, Indigenous groups, Dalit and Harijon communities, tea garden workers, and gender-diverse individuals. By listening to their personal experiences and hopes, the study looks closely at the everyday challenges that make it difficult for these communities to feel truly included in the country’s democratic progress.

The information gathered points to a deep “crisis of confidence” in the election process. Instead of feeling hopeful about a fair and inclusive future, they are now filled with a deep sense of fear and worry. In the current social and political environment, many people no longer view elections as a simple way to vote; instead, they see them as periods of great personal risk and constant worry about their safety. This study highlights a painful gap between the government’s official promises of equity and the reality of discrimination and neglect that many still face. These struggles are made worse by a system that often ignores these problems, allowing those who cause harm to go unpunished. Ultimately, this study shows that the health of a democracy is best measured by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. Their ability to participate safely and with dignity is the true test of whether the national election process is fair and legitimate for everyone

The Current Context: A Crisis of Democratic Inclusion

The dialogues took place during a period of intense political transition and deep-seated public anxiety. While the 2024 mass uprisings initially offered a vision of a “New Bangladesh” rooted in right and justice, the reality for minority communities has been a “crisis of confidence.”

Existential Insecurity: For many, the 2026 election is not viewed as a routine democratic exercise but as a “flashpoint” for danger. Participants described a persistent fear that any political shift could lead to their homes and businesses being targeted.
The Gap in Protection: A strong consensus emerged that the state regardless of which political party is in power has historically failed to uphold its constitutional promise of equality. This has created a vast “chasm” between the government’s official words and the daily discrimination experienced by marginalized groups.
A Culture of Impunity: The lack of justice for past crimes has created a sense of lawlessness. When those who commit violence are not punished, it sends a message that minorities are “soft targets,” leading to a pervasive atmosphere of fear that discourages people from participating in public life

2. Key Issues: Structural Barriers and Systemic Vulnerability

The roundtable discussions highlighted that the core challenges facing the 2026 national election are not merely technical, but are deeply embedded in the country’s social and legal structures. These issues- violence, power imbalances, and legal invisibility form a complex web that often traps marginalized communities in a state of permanent vulnerability.

Detailed Analysis of Structural Issues and Systemic Vulnerability

1. Normalization of Electoral Violence

In Bangladesh, violence against religious and ethnic minorities has transitioned from an occasional crisis to a predictable, “normalized” feature of the election cycle.

Historical Trauma as a Political Tool: Fear is not abstract; it is built on a history of arson, looting, and physical assault. For many, the memory of 2001 or 2014- when minority households were targeted for their perceived political affiliations- serves as a warning. The mere announcement of an election date triggers what participants called “anticipatory trauma,” leading families to stockpile food or plan for temporary relocation rather than engaging in civic debate.
Safety as “Borrowed Time”: Because the state rarely prosecutes those who commit election-related crimes against minorities, a sense of lawlessness prevails. Victims feel they are living in a state of temporary peace, knowing that the next political transition could instantly strip them of their security. This lack of accountability emboldens perpetrators, creating a “culture of impunity” where violence is seen as an effective way to suppress minority influence.

2. Power vs. Vulnerability: The Concentration of Control

The discussions identified the central democratic failure as the concentration of political and economic power within a small, elite circle.

Architecture of Exclusion: This concentration creates a system where “institutional connections”-having a political “godfather” or vast wealth are the only ways to secure protection or resources. For the roughly 17.3 million marginalized people in Bangladesh (including Dalits, trans population, Harijan and tea garden workers), this means they are systematically locked out of the rooms where decisions are made.
Elections as Managed Outcomes: When power is so concentrated, elections stop being a fair competition of ideas and start becoming a tool for the powerful to legitimize their control. Marginalized communities find themselves treated as “appendages” to the national narrative useful for the numbers they provide at polling stations, but invisible when it comes to crafting national policy or receiving equal protection under the law.

3. Constitutional and Legal Ambiguity: The Identity Crisis

A major hurdle discussed was the state’s failure to provide a truly inclusive definition of “national identity,” which has direct legal consequences for representation.

Invisibility in Law: The Constitution identifies the people of Bangladesh as “Bengalis” as a nation (Article 6). For the more than 50 different Indigenous groups and other non-Bengali minorities, this creates a sense of being “strangers in their own land.” When the supreme law of the land does not fully acknowledge their distinct identity, it becomes much harder to demand special status, such as land protection or cultural preservation.
The Problem of “Party Proxies”: Because there are no robust mechanisms for independent minority representation, those who do enter government often do so through major political parties. These individuals frequently become “party proxies” they are forced to prioritize the party’s agenda to survive politically, often at the expense of their own community’s needs. This leads to a form of “tokenism” where a minority face is present in power, but the minority voice remains unheard.
Legitimacy and the State: This ambiguity creates a sense of second-class citizenship. Participants noted that as long as the state uses “Islamic characters” or “Bengali-centric” narratives in its constitutional documents, other communities will feel like their inclusion is a matter of government “charity” rather than an inherent constitutional right.

Institutional Denial and Selective Law Enforcement

In the roundtable discussions, participants described a profound and systemic breakdown in the relationship between state institutions and marginalized communities. This trust deficit is not based on isolated incidents but is the result of long-standing patterns of behavior by law enforcement and administrative bodies.

1. Selective Policing and the Architecture of Inequality

The concept of “selective policing” was identified as a primary driver of fear. Participants argued that the police and other security agencies often operate under the influence of local political “godfathers” or the economic elite.

Reactive vs. Proactive Protection: Law enforcement is often seen as reactive arriving only after an attack has occurred or, in some cases, standing by while violence unfolds. This creates a perception that the state’s primary role is to protect the status quo of the powerful rather than the safety of the vulnerable.
The Deterrent of Harassment: Many from minority groups reported that attempting to seek help from the police can backfire. There is a fear that filing a General Diary (GD) or a First Information Report (FIR) will lead to retaliatory harassment from local powerbrokers, often with the silent consent of the authorities. This makes “justice” feel like an expensive and dangerous luxury that only those with political connections can afford.

2. Institutional Denial: The Erasure of Lived Experience

A particularly damaging issue discussed was “institutional denial”, the state’s tendency to downplay or mischaracterize violence against minorities.

The “Local Dispute” Narrative: When communal or targeted attacks occur, official state narratives and police reports frequently redefine these events as “land disputes” or “unrelated criminal acts.” By removing the communal or political motive from the record, the state avoids the responsibility of addressing systemic discrimination.
Silencing the Victim: This mislabeling effectively “erases” the suffering of the victims. When an attack on a minority household is treated as a simple neighborhood quarrel, the victims feel that their specific identity and the fact that they were targeted because of that identity is being ignored by the law.
Undermining Legitimacy: This practice of denial deeply undermines the “institutional legitimacy” of the state. If citizens believe that the government is actively hiding the truth about the violence they face, they lose all incentive to engage with the legal system or participate in the democratic process.

3. The Politicization of Law Enforcement

The dialogues revealed that law enforcement is often viewed as an extension of the ruling political apparatus rather than a neutral protector of all citizens.

Administrative Inaction: In many cases, participants noted a pattern of “administrative inaction,” where government officials delay necessary interventions during communal tensions. This delay is often perceived as a deliberate move to allow certain political interests to play out on the ground.
The Culture of Impunity: Together, selective policing and institutional denial create a “culture of impunity.” When criminals see that the state will either ignore their actions or redefine them as minor offenses, they are emboldened to strike again. For the marginalized, this means living in a constant state of “high alert,” knowing that the very agencies designed to protect them may, in fact, be indifferent to their fate.

3. Lived Experiences of Political Exclusion

Betrayal of the “Vote Bank”

Minority groups expressed deep frustration at being treated as “vote banks.” Mainstream parties court them with promises of protection during campaigns but abandon them as soon as the election is over. This creates a “no-win” situation where participating in the political process can actually increase their risk of being targeted by the opposing side.

Social Dehumanization and Spatial Exclusion

For Dalit, Harijon, and gender-diverse communities, exclusion is a physical and social reality.

Segregated Living: Many are confined to overcrowded “colonies” with poor services. “Spatial exclusion” means they are often barred from renting homes or living in mainstream neighborhoods because of their caste or identity.
Daily Ostracization: From being denied entry into public spaces like restaurants to facing social “untouchability,” these daily indignities make the idea of participating in national policy-making seem impossible and distant.

The Psychological Toll of Invisibility

The roundtable discussions highlighted that political exclusion is not just about the inability to vote; it is a deeply personal and daily experience that erodes a person’s sense of belonging and safety. Participants detailed how this exclusion manifests through political betrayal and social segregation.

Detailed Analysis of Lived Experiences of Political Exclusion

1. The Betrayal of the “Vote Bank” Strategy

Minority communities—including religious minorities and ethnic groups expressed deep-seated resentment toward being treated as a “vote bank.” This term refers to the practice where mainstream political parties view these communities as a collective block of votes to be secured through empty rhetoric rather than genuine policy reform.

Cycles of Exploitation: During the lead-up to elections, political candidates frequently visit minority neighborhoods, offering lofty promises of secular protection, land rights, and safety. However, once the ballots are cast and power is secured, these promises often vanish.
The “No-Win” Predicament: Participants noted a dangerous paradox: if a minority community is seen as supporting a specific party, they become targets of physical violence and property destruction from the opposing side if that party loses. Conversely, the party they supported rarely provides protection during the aftermath. This leaves these groups in a state of constant vulnerability where their democratic participation is used against them as a pretext for retribution.

2. Social Dehumanization: The Weight of Daily Indignity

For groups like the Dalit and Harijon (often referred to as “untouchables” in a derogatory sense) and gender-diverse (Hijra/Transgender) individuals, exclusion is not an occasional event—it is “woven into the fabric of life.”

Daily Ostracization: Members of these communities shared stories of “social invisibility.” In many rural and peri-urban areas, Dalit and Harijon individuals are still denied entry into local restaurants or are forced to use separate utensils. This social dehumanization creates a psychological barrier; when a person is told daily that they are not fit to sit in a public space, the idea of standing for office or influencing national policy feels like a distant, impossible dream.
The Struggle for Dignity: For gender-diverse individuals, dehumanization often involves public harassment and the denial of basic respect. This atmosphere of constant ridicule makes it difficult for them to engage in political organizing or even attend public town hall meetings.

3. Spatial Exclusion and Segregated Living

The physical landscape of Bangladesh also reflects this exclusion. Marginalized groups are often restricted to specific geographic areas, a phenomenon described as “spatial exclusion.”

The Colony System: Many Dalit and Harijon families are confined to “colonies”—overcrowded, high-density settlements that often lack basic sanitation, clean water, and electricity. These colonies are frequently located near waste dump sites or in undesirable low-lying areas.
Housing Discrimination: Even when individuals from these communities gain the financial means to move, they face a “invisible wall.” Landlords in mainstream neighborhoods often refuse to rent to them once their caste or gender identity is revealed.
Isolation from Power: By being physically pushed to the outskirts of society, these communities are also moved away from the centers of political influence. This physical distance reinforces the feeling that they are not equal stakeholders in the nation’s future, but rather “appendages” to a system that only notices them during an election year.

4. Perceived Barriers to Participation

For many minority communities, the act of voting is weighed against the literal survival of their household.

The “House Burning” Threat: Fear of retaliation is a major reason for low voter turnout among minority communities. Participants explained that in many rural areas, local powerholders issue indirect threats, warning that if a particular candidate loses in a minority-dominated area, the community may face attacks. These threats often involve the risk of arson or the destruction of homes, livestock, and crops. To protect their families and property, many people choose not to vote.
Rational Disenfranchisement: Choosing to stay home on election day becomes a “rational” survival strategy. When the state cannot guarantee that a person’s house will still be standing the morning after an election, “abstaining” is not a lack of interest in democracy, but a necessary tactic to protect one’s family.

2. Economic and Geographic Hurdles: The Distance of Democracy

Participation in elections requires resources that many in the tea gardens or Indigenous territories simply do not have.

The Burden of Poverty: For tea garden workers, voting often comes with a real financial cost rather than a lack of interest in politics. Because they earn very low daily wages (≈ BDT 170 daily per head), missing even one day of work to vote can mean losing money needed for food and other basic needs. This loss becomes heavier when travel costs and long waiting times at polling centers are added, especially when the polling centers are far from where they live. In families already struggling to manage daily expenses, the combined cost of lost wages and transport can feel equal to several days’ worth of food. As a result, voting becomes a difficult choice between exercising a civic right and meeting immediate survival needs.
Unsafe Journeys: Polling centers are often placed far from Indigenous settlements or tea labor colonies, usually in areas dominated by the majority population. Reaching these centers requires traveling long distances, sometimes through places where workers and Indigenous voters feel unsafe, especially during times of political tension. The fear of harassment, intimidation, or violence along the way makes voting a physical risk, leading many to avoid the journey altogether.

3. Administrative Filters: Identity as an Obstacle

The technical process of registration often acts as a gatekeeper that excludes those with the least institutional influence.

The NID Crisis: National Identity (NID) cards are mandatory for voting, yet participants reported widespread errors in the documentation of marginalized groups. These errors—such as misspelled names, incorrect birth dates, or the omission of specific community titles—are often the result of untrained officials who are unfamiliar with minority languages or cultural naming conventions.
Bureaucratic “Dead Ends”: Correcting an error on an NID card requires navigating a complex, expensive, and often discriminatory bureaucracy. Many from the Dalit or rural Indigenous communities lack the digital literacy or the “middlemen” connections needed to fix these documents, effectively “filtering” them out of the voter list before the election even begins.
Invisibility of the Nomadic and Landless: For nomadic groups or those living in temporary settlements (like the Harijon colonies), the lack of a “permanent address” often makes registration impossible, rendering an entire segment of the population legally invisible.

5. Community-Driven Suggestions

1. Proactive Security: Moving from Reaction to Prevention

The most immediate and urgent demand is for a fundamental shift in how the state manages security in minority-dominated areas.

Early Deployment: Participants argued that security forces—including the Police, Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB), and the Army—must be visibly deployed well before the official election schedule is even announced. This “proactive” presence is designed to deter local powerbrokers from issuing threats of arson or violence.
Sensitive Area Designation: There is a strong call to officially designate minority-heavy voting blocks as “sensitive areas.” This would trigger mandatory high-level surveillance and the establishment of temporary security camps to ensure that residents feel safe leaving their homes to vote and, more importantly, safe returning to them after the results are declared.
Post-Election Protection: Historical data shows that violence often peaks after the election. Consequently, communities are demanding that security remain in place for at least 15 to 30 days after the polls close to prevent retaliatory attacks by losing or winning factions.

2. Legal Protections: The Institutional Safety Net

To combat the “culture of impunity,” participants proposed three key institutional pillars to provide dedicated government oversight:

Minority Protection Act: This proposed law would specifically criminalize communal violence, hate speech, and targeted property destruction with fast-track trial provisions. It aims to ensure that “selective policing” is replaced by mandatory legal action.
National Minority Commission: A permanent, independent body with the power to investigate human rights violations against minorities, summon officials, and provide legal aid to victims. This commission would serve as a watchdog, ensuring that the state cannot simply “erase” or downplay communal incidents.
Ministry of Minority Affairs: Similar to models in other South Asian nations, this ministry would provide a direct cabinet-level voice for marginalized groups, overseeing development budgets and ensuring that policy rhetoric is translated into lived reality.

3. Official Recognition: Identity as a Right

Indigenous leaders emphasized that their current constitutional status, often referred to under the umbrella terms of “tribes” or “small ethnic sects” is a form of “legal dehumanization.”

From “Tribal” to “Indigenous”: The demand for official recognition as “Indigenous” (Adivasi) is about more than semantics; it is a demand for the rights established under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Self-Determination and Land Rights: Correct nomenclature is seen as the vital first step toward securing ancestral land rights. Without being recognized as “Indigenous,” these communities find it legally difficult to protect their territories from land-grabbing and “spatial exclusion” by powerful state or private actors.

4. Binding Promises: Accountability Beyond Rhetoric

Participants expressed deep skepticism of political manifestos, which they viewed as “wish lists” that are ignored after the election.

Enforceable Manifestos: The community is demanding that political parties include specific, measurable pledges regarding minority rights—such as the return of “Vested Property” or the establishment of a Land Commission for the plains in their official platforms.
Punitive Measures: There is a call for a legal mechanism where political parties can be held accountable, or even penalized by the Election Commission, if they fail to implement the “protection pledges” made in their manifestos. This move is intended to end the “vote bank” exploitation where parties use minority support without offering any tangible results in return.

The roundtables revealed a significant shift in thinking: marginalized groups are no longer asking for pity as victims; they are demanding their full rights as citizens with dignity. Protecting the margins of society is not just a moral choice-it is a structural necessity. If the state cannot protect its most vulnerable, the entire democratic process is compromised. The success and legitimacy of the 2026 National Election will depend on moving these marginalized voices from the edges to the very center of the national conversation.