Facilitating and protecting the rights to freedom of assembly and association in Bangladesh’s national election

As Bangladesh prepares for its next national election on 12, February, 2026, the focus often falls on political parties, candidates, and voter turnout. Yet, equally critical—though sometimes overlooked—is the role of the police and state institutions in safeguarding the fundamental rights that make elections meaningful. Freedom of assembly and association is not a luxury; it is the cornerstone of democratic practice. Citizens are not merely voters tasked with casting ballots, they are rights-holders whose active participation legitimizes the electoral process. Every decision made by law-enforcement officers, from permitting a rally to either managing a procession, strengthens or undermines the democratic character of the election.

Political competition is inherently public. It unfolds through rallies, street meetings, door-to-door campaigns, and processions. These activities are not disruptions or nuisances by default—they are the very language through which citizens express political choice, mobilize support, and engage in debate. When such spaces shrink due to selective enforcement, over-regulation, or intimidation, elections risk becoming procedural rather than substantive. Public trust is shaped not only by electoral outcomes but by whether all political actors are able to speak, organize, and campaign freely. In Bangladesh, where elections are conducted in a context of mistrust, deep political polarization, and real fears of violence, these challenges are particularly acute. Yet, these conditions justify not suppression, but smarter, rights-respecting policing that balances security with democratic freedoms.

The constitutional and legal framework in Bangladesh provides clear guidance. Articles 37 and 38 of the Constitution guarantee the freedoms of assembly and association as enforceable rights. These rights are not discretionary; they are binding obligations that must inform every administrative and policing decision. Restrictions are permitted only on grounds of public order, morality, or public health and even then, they must meet the standard of “reasonableness.” Administrative convenience or political pressure cannot substitute for legitimate justification. Statutory powers under the Police Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and special laws confer authority on the police, but these powers exist to support, not undermine, constitutional rights. During elections, directives from the Election Commission guide policing, yet even these must be interpreted and implemented in a manner consistent with fundamental freedoms.

Throughout the electoral cycle, assembly and association rights require careful protection. In the pre-election phase, activities such as party registration, formation of alliances, and grassroots organization are inherently lawful. Surveillance, interference, or unnecessary restriction at this stage erodes trust and undermines competitive democracy. During the campaign and polling periods, political mobilization naturally intensifies. Public spaces, whether streets, parks, or community halls, belong collectively to citizens, not to a party or the state. When rival or counter-assemblies occur, the solution is management, separation, and dialogue, not prohibition. Even during election silence periods, lawful assemblies cannot be indiscriminately curtailed unless explicitly prohibited by law. In the post-election phase, victory processions and protest assemblies are protected forms of expression. Disagreement with results is not sedition, and suppression at this stage often escalates tension, deepening mistrust in democratic institutions. Dialogue, visible neutrality, and proportional intervention are the most effective stabilizers of post-poll grievances.

This approach requires a fundamental shift from a “law and order” mindset to one of “rights facilitation.” Assemblies should be presumed peaceful unless there is clear, evidence-based reason to believe otherwise. Police responsibilities extend beyond merely containing crowds. Officers must ensure safe access to venues, protect participants—including opposition supporters, minorities, and women and act with impartiality. Short-term measures of control, such as selective enforcement, intimidation, or overuse of legal provisions like Section 144, may appear effective in maintaining order, but they often produce long-term instability and delegitimize the electoral process. Experience from past elections shows that facilitation of lawful political activity strengthens stability, whereas suppression provokes grievance and erodes public confidence.

Special attention must be given to vulnerable groups. Women, marginalized communities, first-time political participants, and politically marginalized individuals are both more visible and more susceptible to harassment or intimidation. Failure to ensure their safety does not remain a local concern; it quickly becomes a national and international issue, attracting scrutiny that affects Bangladesh’s democratic credibility. Effective protection is thus an ethical, legal, and operational imperative.

Coordination with the Election Commission is critical. Written directives, clear chains of command, and refusal to act on informal or illegal instructions protect both officers and the democratic process. Documentation, transparency, and accountability are not bureaucratic burdens, they are safeguards that enhance public trust, provide legal defense for officers, and reinforce the legitimacy of policing decisions. Strategic preventive measures, including early engagement with political actors, structured training, clear operational guidelines, and proactive public communication, reduce uncertainty and prevent tensions from escalating.

Ultimately, freedom of assembly and association is the soul of electoral democracy. The police are not neutral bystanders; they are decisive actors whose professionalism, impartiality, and commitment to constitutional rights shape public confidence in elections. The national election tomorrow will test not only political actors but also the institutional maturity, integrity, and constitutional fidelity of Bangladesh’s police service. By protecting citizens’ rights while ensuring safety and order, the police can help ensure that the 2026 election is not only peaceful but genuinely democratic, reinforcing Bangladesh’s democratic institutions and public trust for years to come.

I am confident that the Bangladesh Police, along with other security forces—including the Armed Forces, Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB), and Ansars & VDP—are fully prepared and committed to upholding the highest standards of professionalism, integrity, and neutrality. Their dedication is vital to ensuring that tomorrow’s election is conducted in a free, fair, and credible manner. Let us remain hopeful for a peaceful and transparent democratic exercise.