Published: 01:30 PM, 21 January 2026
Free Elections Impossible With Parties Banned
People no doubt have heard about a serious partisan divide in US politics. We have a two-party system, and many in each see the other as the source of what is wrong in our country. I talk to Democrats who say (and believe) that President Donald Trump is a threat to democracy and that Republicans are part of the problem since they do not oppose him. I talk to Republicans who say (and believe) that the Democratic Party has moved so far to the left that it is committed open borders, military weakness, the oppression of conservative voices, and the death of the United States as we know it. Their feelings are strong and their disdain for the other party intense; and each group believes the other to be an existential threat to our country.
It is not my intention to talk about who is right and who is wrong. What is important is that I end up asking many of those people if the “other side” is so bad, are they advocating for the US to become a one-party state. No one has ever answered yes. Even if I follow up with something along the lines of elevating minor parties and doing away with Republicans for “their crimes” or Democrats for “their crimes,” not a single person has ever suggested banning the party they hate. Here, the overwhelming response is for all points of view to be put out in the marketplace of ideas, and let the people decide. The only time when America banned a political party was at the height of our so-called Red Scare, when many Americans feared Soviet infiltration of our democratic society. In 1954, we banned the Communist Party after a flood of revelations that indicated the party was part of an international movement, which takes orders from the Soviet Union, and of instances when American communists in government gave state secrets to the Soviet Union. And so it was banned as an arm of a foreign agent. The US did not ban other parties that organized with the same goals but were not demonstrably working at the behest of our enemies.
Whether or not Bangladesh holds elections in February 2026 as promised by the interim government, they almost certainly will be labeled as neither free nor fair as long as the government prohibits the Awami League from participating. After all, even with the vote total padded in previous elections, the Awami League has been the most popular party in Bangladesh for most of this century. In fact, the last Bangladeshi election that observers certified as free and fair was in 2008 when the Awami League won a resounding victory with 77 percent of Bangladeshis voting for it. I understand the people’s deep anger with former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League. For years, I regularly heard Bangladeshis from all walks of life tell me about their heavy-handed methods, denial of human rights, and attack on free speech whenever I was in the country. But the question that everyone should ask themselves is whether or not Bangladesh claim will be able to claim credibly before the entire world that it has returned to democracy if it holds a vote that disenfranchises a significant percentage of its population. Bangladeshis also might ask themselves if, regardless of what outsiders say, holding an election with major parties banned can be democratic, having deprived a certain number of people of the right to choose candidates of their choice.
Full disclosure, my beliefs and political positions could not be further than they are from those championed by Jamaat e-Islami and other Islamist parties. But I never liked the fact that they were banned by the previous government. If some individuals in the party cared more about a Muslim Ummah than about Bangladesh and, for instance, worked against Bangladesh’s 1971 War of Independence from Pakistan; the entire electorate did not deserve collective punishment for the actions of some. In the one instance above in which the United States banned a party, it was only after extensive evidence showed the party structure itself to be part of an international body working to undermine the United States and replace its government with a communist one. Mere hatred of communism was not enough to justify the ban. There is no evidence that the Awami League is structured as part of an international organization that seeks to undermine Bangladesh.
Banning the Awami League has led several individuals and organizations to question what the interim government and its allies fear. Before the 2024 coup, it was dangerous for many Bangladeshis to talk about things in their country without making sure to praise Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. People were even imprisoned for criticizing her. But since the coup, people have released a lot of pent-up anger they harbored toward the Awami League, such that it now is sometimes dangerous to praise that party and its rule. Thus, the notion of allowing it to participate in the election could do more to advance its opponents. If the Awami League does contest and is roundly rejected, it will be a rejection by the people, as opposed to the current situation in which it is rejected only by the government, and that carries little weight compared to the voice of the people.
Failure to conduct elections that the international community deems free and fair could have negative consequences. Bangladesh could continue to find itself barred from associations of democratic counties, like The Quad. Many citizens of democratic nations in North America and Europe will prefer to purchase garments from other democracies rather than from countries that undermine democracy and strengthen anti-democratic forces that want to eliminate free elections. And that could spell disaster for any economic recovery in Bangladesh.
Along with Committee to Protect Journalists, Human Rights Watch, other human rights organizations, and several US lawmakers from both parties to rescind the ban on the Awami League immediately so it can participate fully in Bangladesh’s upcoming election. I say that not to benefit my country or the Awami League, but rather urge the government to lift the ban on the Awami League for the benefit of the people and nation of Bangladesh.
Dr. Richard L. Benkin is an
American scholar and a
geopolitical expert. Views expressed in the article are the author's
personal opinions.
