Bangladesh at a Crossroads: From Electoral Autocracy to One-Party Dominance?

Summary

Since February 2026, Bangladesh has transitioned from the Awami League’s electoral autocracy to BNP-led one-party dominance. The BNP’s landslide victory and the Awami League ban have concentrated power, sparking fears of a return to authoritarian rule.

The political journey of Bangladesh has taken quite a twist ever since the end of the fifteen years of reign of the Awami League. The Parliamentary elections of February 2026 that took place amid intense political unrest saw a landslide win for the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), led by Tarique Rahman. What was previously hailed as a much-needed corrective in the face of years of Awami League’s authoritarian rule has now become a precarious concentration of political power. The exclusion of the Awami League from participating in the elections, coupled with new parliament’s April 2026 decision to declare the party illegal, begs a crucial question: is Bangladesh reverting back to the days of one-party rule?

For a long period, the Awami League, under the leadership of Sheikh Hasina, was perceived to be making Bangladesh into an “electoral autocracy". Elections held in 2014, 2018, and 2024 came under fire because of lack of competition and absence of any opposition. However, the election of 2026 took place in a completely changed political atmosphere. The Awami League was banned from taking part in elections due to charges of corruption, abuse of power and involvement in violence during the last years of rule under Sheikh Hasina.

Now, the BNP claims democratic restoration, which means that the Awami League has lost its legitimacy due to years of dictatorial rule. The leadership of the BNP believe that banning the Awami League from politics is essential to avoid the recurrence of a fascist machine of politics which had ruined the democratic system in Bangladesh. The supporters of the newly formed regime also contend that there should be a fresh start for the new Bangladesh without Hasina-led Awami League so that people could trust politics again.

Nevertheless, banning any political party is considered a step against the essence of democracy irrespective of the arguments presented for this drastic action. In April 2026, the newly elected Parliament with a majority of the BNP banned the Awami League, restricting any organisational activities of Awami League as well as any participation in future elections by any members of the Awami League. This has brought about drastic changes in the country’s political dynamics because even though the Awami League has not been dissolved yet but the ban on its activities prevents it from any political engagement.

Politics in Bangladesh has traditionally been characterised by antagonism and polarised competition between two competing parties, the Awami League and the BNP. However, even in this highly polarised context, elections that pitted the two against each other defined the core of politics in Bangladesh for decades. Now that the Awami League has been removed from the picture, the BNP stands in a unique political situation. This is seen clearly in the composition of the 300-member parliament, which is totally dominated by the BNP with more than 200 seats. Most of the opposition parties, including Jamaat-e-Islami with 68 seats and the National Citizen Party (NCP) with 6 seats, are not in a position to influence policy. Other parties do not have the nationwide network to be viable political competitors and some are politically beholden to the BNP. This gives the BNP absolute dominance in both the national parliament and state bureaucracy.

This overwhelming concentration of power has highlighted fears that Bangladesh is making a transition from one kind of dominant-party politics to another. In the case of the Awami League, it was often claimed by opposition that elections were held primarily to provide legitimacy to predetermined results. For the current regime headed by the BNP, the main concern is regarding a political system in which the lack of main opposition means no alternation of power. Of course, the BNP would not accept this comparison. BNP members argue that the aim of banning the Awami League is to restructure politics.

However, there are several factors that have added fuel to the fire concerning the democratic backsliding under the new government. Firstly, constitutional methods can be weaponised in a harmful fashion if one looks at the history of Bangladesh where laws have rarely been used as neutral instruments of justice.

Second, political discourse in the BNP has come to depict the Awami League as an inherently illegitimate entity. This line of rhetoric resembles the one the Awami League had previously employed against the BNP, calling them either “terrorists” or “anti-state” parties. In highly polarised political environments, political delegitimisation of one’s opponents tends to precede full authoritarian entrenchment.

Third, there is also fear about the independence of institutions. While the judiciary, the civil service and the law-enforcement agencies in Bangladesh had become heavily politicised under the Awami League rule, it is argued that these institutions are being made to align themselves with the BNP instead of reforming and depoliticising them. But replacing members of one political party by those from another does not necessarily constitute democratisation.

Disclaimer: Views expressed are of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Statecraft Institute.