On December 24, 2025, Bangladesh’s interim government under Muhammad Yunus announced parliamentary elections for February 12, 2026. The announcement came with a decisive condition: the Awami League, the country’s largest political party, would be barred from contesting. The party’s leader, former prime minister Sheikh Hasina, has since been convicted by a judiciary appointed after the regime change.

This setup belies the claim of restoring true democracy. It effectively rigs the contest at the entry stage—by deciding who may compete before a single vote is cast. Whether or not one favours the Awami League, it follows from first principles that excluding one of two major parties at the outset is not a signifier of democratic choice.

From Uprising to Regime Change

The rupture of 2024 began with protests over public-sector job quotas and quickly escalated into a broader revolt against Hasina’s long rule. Allegations of repression, institutional capture, and manipulated elections had accumulated over the years. After violent protests broke out, and the army chief refused to step in to protect the Prime Minister, Hasina fled the country. An interim authority was installed. Bangladesh was told this was a bridge back to democracy.

One can certainly argue that the Awami League’s governance deserved scrutiny, or that allegations of electoral malpractice merited investigation. What does not follow is the erasure of a political constituency that has commanded mass support for decades. Removing a government is one thing. Removing the people’s ability to vote for a major political force is another.

The Only Honest Way to Test the Rigging Claim

Defenders of the ban insist the Awami League’s past victories were products of rigged elections. That allegation is serious—but it is not self-proving. In any democracy, there is only one legitimate way to establish whether a party’s mandate was........

© News18