While candidates reach voters, diplomats engage power
The direct or indirect influence of the United States, the European Union, Russia, China, and India on elections or politics in Bangladesh is nothing new. In this election, the influence of Pakistan and Turkey has also been added. In the upcoming election, foreign influence has now become more or less an open secret. Since the post–One-Eleven period, India had enjoyed exclusive dominance. After the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s government, there was a significant rise of anti-India forces in Bangladesh. As a result, India has so far not been able to exert much influence over the election mechanism. However, there is no reason to believe that a powerful neighbor is sitting quietly. It is waiting for an appropriate opportunity.
On the other hand, the United States and its allies, as well as China, are far more active in this election than in the past. China traditionally works at a slower pace. It does not interfere in everything, but when it comes to its own commercial and strategic interests, China does not give up an inch. Turkey had never previously been part of discussions regarding politics or elections in Bangladesh. This time too, it is not directly visible. Yet many claim to hear the jingle of the lira. Many are now feeling the heat of the lira.
From the announcement of the election schedule to alliance formation and plans for the next government, diplomatic and political circles suggest that U.S. influence is particularly strong. While candidates are going to the people with their respective election symbols, foreign friends are calculating the future power equations of Bangladesh. Some foreign friends are believed to have gone a step further—already completing the arithmetic of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division of the election outcome, much like during the One-Eleven government in 2008, when the final tally had been decided even before the election.
Only 13 days remain before the 13th National Parliamentary Election and the fourth referendum. If everything goes as planned, the election will be held on February 12. So far, no alarming or frightening incident has occurred. What is ongoing is verbal warfare among alliance leaders and candidates, along with a flurry of promises and narratives of new arrangements. Inside the country, research is being conducted on election-related rumors, disinformation campaigns by online troll groups, and various suggestions offered by social media influencers.
At this time, foreign embassy and donor agency officials working in Bangladesh appear to be the busiest. In all previous periods of national crisis, their activities were also noticeable. Sometimes they offer advice, sometimes they offer misguidance. At times they pull the strings to topple governments, at other times to install them. From the head of government to political leaders, administrative chiefs, and constitutional authorities including the Election Commission, influential figures seem to find satisfaction in the company of foreign ambassadors. Instead of focusing on satisfying the people of the country, everyone appears to be striving with all their might to satisfy foreigners.
Our politics and governments are often heavily influenced—sometimes by “elder siblings,” sometimes by “sir and madam.” Bangladesh has 81 embassies and missions abroad. Those countries also face crises and hold elections; some even form interim governments like ours. Yet there is no news of Bangladeshi ambassadors or mission chiefs meeting government officials or political leaders in those countries. Then why, even after 54 years of independence, has our backbone not straightened? Why can we still not conduct our elections on our own? Why can we not ask foreigners why they are so concerned about our elections?
Bangladesh has 81 embassies and missions across eight regions of the world: nine in Africa, nine in the Americas, seven in East Asia and the Asia-Pacific, six in Eastern Europe and the CIS region, twelve in South Asia, nine in Southeast Asia, thirteen in West Asia, and sixteen in Western Europe and the EU region. Skilled Bangladeshi diplomats serve in all these missions.
In recent times, political crises emerged in two South Asian countries—Sri Lanka and Nepal. Gen-Z movements led to the fall of governments in both Bangladesh and Nepal. Bangladesh’s government fell on August 5, 2024, while Nepal’s government fell on September 9, 2025. Following the fall, interim governments were formed in both countries. Bangladesh’s interim government took 18 months to prepare for elections, while Nepal is going to elections within six months. Bangladesh’s election is scheduled for February 12, 2026, while Nepal’s election is on March 5. Bangladeshi candidates have received their symbols and are already campaigning, while in Nepal the deadline for nomination submission was January 20, and their candidates are also in the field.
Like Bangladesh, Nepal has formed electoral alliances and has a bicameral parliament. Yet in Bangladesh, foreign ambassadors and mission chiefs are visibly hyperactive around the election—meeting leaders of parties big and small, attending political events, and advising the Chief Adviser and the Election Commission with great enthusiasm. Their activities make it seem as though Bangladesh is the only country in the world without democracy, voting rights, basic human rights, or rule of law—and that fixing Bangladesh is their responsibility.
In contrast, there is little to no visible activity by foreign diplomats regarding Nepal’s election. There is not even any news of Bangladesh’s ambassador to Nepal, Md. Shafiqul Rahman, meeting government officials or political leaders there. If Nepal’s former Chief Justice Sushila Karki can organize elections without accommodating foreign interference, why does our Nobel laureate need to seek foreign advice? Why can he not tell foreigners to let us conduct our own election? Why can our political parties not place trust in the people? Why does our Election Commission need foreign certification to prove its credibility?
Many unexpected events may occur in the 2026 election. Those who outwardly believe the election will be tough but whose grassroots workers are sleeping soundly may face unpleasant surprises. One must remember that before the 1991 election, the Awami League was also complacent. Many leaders had tailored new Mujib coats and suits and even decided among themselves which ministry they would take. Amir Hossain Amu had said he would take the Home Ministry—but everything was ultimately overturned.
Those who are smiling confidently, forming alliances based on foreign advice and gazing at the seat of power with excessive ambition, may see their smiles fade. Those entering the electoral field as new strikers or bowlers, confident of sweeping Gen-Z votes, must remember that 2024 and 2026 are not the same. In other words, those expecting joy and celebration may end up in tears—and some may even lose the strength to cry.
Old voters, new voters, women voters, and expatriate voters are all factors this time. Crossing the electoral tightrope by relying on a single factor will not be possible. Voters of diverse mindsets and moods, along with the long arms of foreign actors, may become decisive game-changers in this election. Within the government itself are the architects of the 2008 election, now joined by new architects. Despite calls for neutrality, it remains to be seen whether the government itself will ultimately tilt the wind in favor of a particular side.
Dr. Muhammad Yunus and his government’s advisers and special assistants may not be seasoned politicians, but they have already mastered the skill of making experienced politicians drink muddy water. They, too, are now major players. Discussions are also circulating that a large section of the government and foreign actors may seek to produce a hung parliament.
During the previous government, Shamim Osman raised the slogan “Khela Hobe” from Narayanganj. That slogan crossed Bangladesh’s borders and echoed in the voice of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, eventually becoming a signature phrase of Obaidul Quader, the general secretary of the Awami League, whose activities are currently banned. At that time, the Awami League had threatened all opposition parties with “the game.” Today, those opposition parties are playing their own games—some with religion, some with work. Some promise dreams of this world, others guarantee both this world and the hereafter.
Meanwhile, the spool of the old player, the Awami League, is now in India. Which direction that spool will be pulled before or after February 12 is something to watch closely. Therefore, the ball is at Raja Mia’s feet—both goalkeepers should be cautious.
Monjurul Islam
Executive Editor, Bangladesh Pratidin
