TDS Desk:

Emerging from the “Aragalaya” mass protests in 2022, Sri Lanka faced a crossroads marked by political uncertainty, economic damage and a deep crisis of confidence. Its September 2024 national election was a critical test of democratic resilience. Against a backdrop of economic collapse, social anger and deep distrust of the old political elite, Sri Lanka’s Election Commission succeeded in steering the country back to democracy after the uprising.

After announcing the election schedule, the Election Commission of Sri Lanka (ECSL) moved decisively to shield the process from government influence by neutralising the administration and police. Officials and public servants were barred from political activity. The commission publicly objected to the ruling party candidate’s use of administrative advantages. It ordered a halt to a land distribution programme launched by then president Ranil Wickremesinghe and criticised a government announcement on salary increases for public servants as a breach of the electoral code of conduct.

A nationwide voter awareness campaign reached the grassroots. Turnout of nearly 70 percent further bolstered the poll’s legitimacy. For observers and analysts, the ability to hold a peaceful, competitive and credible election set an exceptional precedent in South Asia’s political history.

Analysts say Sri Lanka’s successful election could serve as a model for Bangladesh. However, the administrative and campaign landscape taking shape in Bangladesh after the schedule for its upcoming thirteenth parliamentary election and a simultaneous referendum was announced is widely seen as the opposite of Sri Lanka’s path.

Where Sri Lanka’s commission brought the administrative and security apparatus under neutral authority after announcing the schedule, significant promotions and transfers have continued in Bangladesh. The interim government has also retained plans to sign agreements with various countries before the polls. In effect, rather than limiting itself to routine matters, the interim administration has kept a decisive role across all sectors after the schedule was announced.

Furthermore, reports have emerged of a coordinated, multi-tiered government campaign in favour of a “Yes” vote in the referendum. This was publicly suspended only after the Election Commission issued a formal notification.

Sri Lanka’s 2024 election stands in clear contrast to the country’s previous polls. Allegations of vote rigging, the incumbent’s use of administrative power, misuse of state resources and violence were routine in debates around the 2010 and 2015 elections. The 2019 general election was also marred by widespread accusations of black money in campaigns, state bias, electoral fraud and the suppression of opponents.

By comparison, the 2024 vote drew no major allegations of ballot stuffing or large-scale fraud. Its defining feature was that the government confined itself to routine duties. All decisions on organising the poll, managing the voting process and announcing the results rested solely with the Election Commission. Police, district administrations and local government bodies operated under the Commission’s direction. The Commission also enforced its code of conduct on candidates’ digital campaigning and party activity.

Sri Lanka’s Election Commission’s primary aim was to ensure a level playing field, for which it imposed strict limits on the use of state resources, anticipating the incumbent’s advantage. It publicly ordered a halt to a land distribution programme run by the office of then president Ranil Wickremesinghe during the election period. It also criticised a government announcement on salary increases for public servants as a breach of electoral conduct — a move that caused a significant stir. To curb black money, it closely monitored candidates’ campaign spending. Police and security agencies were routinely accused of siding with the government in past elections. In 2024, however, the security forces acted as “guardians of the vote”, not as “influencers”, marking a significant change. Separate coordination units were set up for district administration, police and local government, implementing only the Commission’s instructions. The roles of returning and assistant returning officers at the field were clearly defined, with a central monitoring cell collecting daily reports. This structure ensured swift, disciplined and neutral decision-making.

The general election was held in Sri Lanka on September 21, 2024 Photo: REUTERS

According to observers, Sri Lanka’s electoral success flowed from the Election Commission’s independence, its firm control over the administration and its sustained effort to run a poll free from government influence. This contrasts sharply with Bangladesh, where the post-schedule period has brought major administrative promotions and transfers, alongside a government-driven referendum campaign, reviving debate over state conduct during an election period.

The Bangladesh Election Commission announced the schedule for a dual vote — the thirteenth parliamentary election and a referendum — on December 11. The following day, the interim government approved large-scale promotions within the BCS General Education cadre, elevating 2,706 officers to the ranks of professor and associate professor. On the same day, 30 officers holding the rank of deputy inspector general (DIG) and nine additional DIGs in the Bangladesh Police were transferred. Then, on January 27 this year, 118 joint secretaries in the public administration were promoted to additional secretary.

For the referendum, the government had also launched a planned and coordinated campaign for a “Yes” vote. This included mobilising NGOs with local administrations, instructing all bank branches to display banners, placing banners outside garment factories, and using teachers at educational institutions and cultural programmes to build public support for the “Yes” vote. However, after the Election Commission issued a notification on January 29 declaring such campaigning by the state’s employees a punishable offence, the public campaign was formally suspended.

The government had begun its “Yes” campaign on January 12, prompting questions over why the Commission’s order barring civil servants from campaigning came so late. The interim government is also set to sign major agreements with various countries immediately before the election. It had likewise prepared to raise government employees’ salaries, though it later stepped back from the move.

On this issue, AKM Abdul Awal Mazumder, a former secretary and former rector of the Bangladesh Public Administration Training Centre (BPATC), told journalists: “The government has only a few days left in office. The transfer of power after the vote will take a few days. It’s entirely inappropriate for the government to embark on any major initiatives at this stage. The agreements it is seeking to sign are not appropriate. This doesn’t accord with democratic norms. I have also objected from the outset to the government taking sides for a ‘Yes’ vote. The government should not take a position. It prepared the ‘Yes–No’ proposal; the rest is for the people. Let voters and politicians together decide what should and should not be.”

Concern is also rising over election-related violence. Since the schedule was announced, incidents of violence and clashes linked to the polls have increased across various areas, steadily raising political tensions. This is compounded by longstanding uncertainty over law and order. A large number of weapons lost from law enforcement agencies during the unrest of August 5, 2024, remain unrecovered. This has fuelled insecurity and anxiety among voters.

Another concern is voter turnout. With consecutive holidays during the voting period, many voters may leave their home constituencies, prompting fears of a lower turnout. The interim government’s foreign affairs adviser, Md Touhid Hossain, has recently voiced hope for a turnout above 55 percent. However, given that voters have effectively been denied their voting rights for more than a decade and a half, observers say public engagement and voter presence should logically be higher this time, though they warn that unless election violence is curbed, weapons recovered and polling station security guaranteed, the risk of low turnout will only grow.

Meanwhile, at a roundtable discussion at a Dhaka hotel on January 28, Professor Ali Riaz, special assistant to Chief Adviser Dr Muhammad Yunus, said in his keynote address, “From its first day, the elected parliament will carry out its normal functions such as forming a government, running the country and preparing the budget. However, fundamental changes are needed to steer the existing constitution away from the path of fascism. To this end, the elected members will take a separate oath and complete the reform work within 180 days.” His remarks triggered intense debate on social media and in political circles. After widespread criticism, the Chief Adviser’s Press Wing issued a clarification on its verified Facebook page, stating that Professor Ali Riaz did not say anywhere that the interim government would function as a constituent assembly for 180 days; rather, he said this duty would be performed by the elected parliament members.

A former senior government official told journalists: “The key issue is that once the election schedule is announced, the government should not take major policy decisions, make administrative appointments or take any step that could influence the election. This is essentially a democratic convention. While not codified in law, it’s an established norm in parliamentary democracies. In stable parliamentary systems such as the United Kingdom and India, governments avoid major policy decisions during elections and confine themselves to ‘routine work’. This is more a matter of political and moral responsibility than legal obligation. In short, restraint by the government after the schedule is announced is a longstanding democratic practice.”

However, Election Commissioner Md Anwarul Islam Sarker has said government activity since the schedule was announced has not influenced the electoral process. Speaking to journalists, he said: “International treaties or memoranda of understanding are part of long-term state processes. The government is acting within its Rules of Business and constitutional responsibilities. The Election Commission’s ability to intervene in these areas is limited. Our primary duty is to maintain neutrality in the electoral process, and we are applying the relevant laws and regulations. It appears to us that the government’s actions fall within the constitution and existing norms. We have no evidence that these activities are directly linked to the election or are influencing it.”

Economist and Gonotantrik Odhikar Committee member Professor Anu Muhammad has described the government’s approach to signing agreements, while disregarding public opinion and protest, as highly suspicious. He said, “The government is acting contrary to rules, norms and laws. It is doing the opposite of the reformist rhetoric it espouses. The chief adviser has brought certain individuals into the government, ostensibly as special assistants. Yet their primary role has effectively become that of corporate lobbyists. Their constant eagerness to sign deals with foreign companies is deeply suspicious.”

He posed a question: “Have they made promises to someone? Or are they beholden to protecting the interests of foreign companies or other states? They can’t now proceed with agreements, fund allocations or procurements. These must stop. I can’t understand why the political parties are remaining silent.”

On the issue, Cabinet Secretary Dr Sheikh Abdur Rashid told journalists: “This isn’t a caretaker government. Therefore, the question of whether it can make policy decisions after the schedule announcement is not logical. The government can make decisions at any time based on the state’s necessity. Promotions are occurring in line with regulations.” He said promotions were proceeding because posts were vacant and officers were qualified.

A different view was offered by Dr Md Abdul Alim, a former member of the Electoral Reform Commission and a former member of investigative commission into electoral irregularities in past three elections. He told journalists: “Before an election, the government’s primary duty should be to provide necessary support to the Election Commission and maintain routine administrative functions. But when major policy decisions, large agreements or widespread promotions and appointments are made during this period, questions naturally arise. Transfers or promotions to key administrative posts during an election can raise public doubts about the conduct and neutrality of field-level administration. That’s precisely why, in many countries, governments confine themselves to routine duties in the pre-election period and exercise restraint in making major policy decisions. Even where no formal caretaker system exists, outgoing governments refrain from major policy decisions when an election is imminent.”

In Dr Alim’s view, “Unless absolutely essential, decisions such as major contracts, key appointments or promotions should be avoided in the pre-election period. If they must be taken, they should be made in consultation with the Election Commission and with transparency maintained — this is the internationally recognised good practice.”