How we lost our right to say 'No'
Hasina did not bother to “defeat the very freedom of expression and the right to liberty” of people. She clung to power by holding three stage-managed elections in 2014, 2018 and 2024, after abolishing the ‘No’ vote system
The abrupt cancellation of the 'No' vote system was the first attack by the Sheikh Hasina government on the election system developed through sweeping reforms during the past caretaker government-led by Fakhruddin Ahmed.
Formed in January 2009, her government hurriedly passed a bill in parliament next month deleting the provision for 'No' vote from the Representation of the People Order (RPO).
The system was introduced months before the December 2008 election as citizens' rights to say no against all candidates on the ballot, if they didn't like any of them.
If the symbol for 'none of the above candidates', known as the 'No' vote, in any constituency registered more than 50 percent of votes cast, the returning officer would cancel the results of that seat and a re-vote would be held, according to the provision repealed by the Hasina government in February 2009.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
With the introduction of the provision, Bangladesh was the first among the Saarc countries to empower its citizens with the right to say "No"—a right which would be widely lauded and defended by India's Supreme Court asking the Election Commission to introduce 'No' vote on ballots, which would be introduced in India's 2014 election.
The system was introduced amid strong opposition by major political parties, thanks to the Chief Election Commissioner ATM Shamsul Huda-led EC's bold stance. It stuck to its gun and argued that "casting 'No' vote is one of the democratic rights. It gives voters an additional 'choice' of rejecting the choice of the political parties."
As the Awami League did not support the provision during the electoral reforms talks with the EC in 2008, Hasina government's first move to bring change in electoral laws was cancellation of the 'No' vote system by hurriedly passing a bill in February, just a month after Hasina assumed the office of the prime minister.
As the EC arranged talks on electoral reforms before the 2014 and 2018 parliamentary elections, civil society individuals who had been working for people's rights requested the then EC to move for restoration of the 'No' vote system.
But none of the ECs-led by Kazi Rakibuddin Ahmed and Nurul Huda bothered to take up the request. Cancellation of the caretaker government however buried the scope for holding free and fair elections.
All other major electoral reforms done during the Fakhruddin Ahmed-led caretaker government were also undone for the worse during Hasina's regime, resulting in a complete collapse of the election system.
Two years after cancelling the 'No' vote system, the other bigger attack was abolishing the constitutional provision for the referendum system by the Hasina government along with scrapping the nonpartisan election time caretaker government in 2011 by the 15th amendment to the constitution.
Putin's Model: No to 'No' vote
Introduced in August 2008, months before the December election in Bangladesh, the 'No' vote provision did not have much effect in the polls. Only around four lakh people voted 'No' then.
The then EC and electoral experts were however upbeat, as they argued that the system was just introduced and new to voters. They hoped it would gradually get momentum, forcing political parties to field honest and good candidates in the elections, fearing rejection of the voters.
Why did the Hasina government hurriedly kill the system?
What happened in Russia under Putin can be referred to as the answer.
For decades, voters in the Soviet Union were only allowed to cast a vote of unqualified approval. The turnout was 99.99% in 1984 elections, held on the basis of the existing system.
The vote in favour of the single list of candidates ranged from 99.91 up to 100%. And the results were so predictable that newspapers could be prepared the day before with pictures of winners.
In December 1988, an entirely new electoral law introduced important changes, and in March 1989, the first election took place that allowed a choice of candidate, if not yet of party.
Since then, voters in Russia (and most of the other post-Soviet republics) have been offered the opportunity to vote 'against all' parties and candidates. Increasing numbers have done so.
The evidence of two post-election surveys indicates that 'against all' voters are younger than other voters, more urban and more highly educated. They do not reject liberal democracy, but are critical of the contemporary practice of Russian politics and find no parties that adequately reflect their views, according to a study "Voting 'Against All' in Postcommunist Russia' by Ian Mcallister, a former professor of Australian National University, and Stephen White, a British political scientist.
But Putin who held continuous positions as president or prime minister since 1999 abolished the "against all", which is known as "No" vote, in 2006, when he was the president of Russia.
Significance of 'No' vote
The Indian Election Commission had moved to introduce the 'No' vote in 2009. But it could not proceed with the idea due to the political parties' opposition.
It was the Indian Supreme Court that came up with a landmark verdict in September 2013 asking the EC to introduce the "No" vote provision.
It was of the opinion that negative voting would foster honesty and vibrancy in elections.
"Democracy is all about choice and the right of citizens to cast negative votes is of utmost significance. The right to vote and the right to say 'No' are both part of the basic right of voters," it observed.
The Indian SC also said: "For democracy to survive, it is essential that the best available men should be chosen … for proper governance of the country. This can be best achieved through men of high moral and ethical values who win the elections on a positive vote."
Thus the 'No' vote option would indeed compel political parties to nominate sound candidates, it said. Not allowing a person to cast a negative vote would defeat the very freedom of expression and the right to liberty, said the Indian apex court.
More than a dozen countries such as France, Spain, Canada, Argentina and Greece now have 'No' votes in their electoral system.
Hasina however did not bother to "defeat the very freedom of expression and the right to liberty" of people. She clung to power by holding three stage-managed elections in 2014, 2018 and 2024 after abolishing the 'No' vote system.
One of the salient features of her regime was to brutally gag dissenting voices criticising her government and crush any protests on the streets. Excessive use of the force against her political opponents and blatant abuse of cyber law to gag differing voices created an atmosphere of fear.
But all those nefarious efforts finally shut the door for her safe exit. She had to resign abruptly and fled the country to avert the wrath of the agitating students and people against her.
