In my previous writing, I had stated that the results of the recent Bangladesh election were predetermined. At that time, I could not present sufficient evidence or strong arguments to support the claim. Below, I present data that may be treated as supporting evidence.

As per the Election Commission (EC), the total number of voters is 12,77,11,793 (twelve crore, seventy-seven lakh, eleven thousand, seven hundred ninety-three). The total number of voting centres is 42,761, and the total number of polling booths is 2,44,659. Voting was conducted from 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM—a total of 9 hours or 540 minutes.

The EC claims that 59.44% of voters cast their votes. This means that 59% of 12,77,11,793 equals 7,59,11,890 voters.

The average number of voters per polling booth would therefore be:
7,59,11,890 ÷ 2,44,659 = 310.27 voters.

Given a total voting time of 540 minutes, the time available per voter becomes:
540 ÷ 310.27 ≈ 1.74 minutes.

Time Constraints and Practical Impossibility

It is highly improbable for a single voter to complete the voting process—covering verification, collection of ballots, and depositing them in two separate boxes—within just 1.74 minutes. Maintaining such a pace continuously for 9 hours, across all polling booths, centres, and constituencies nationwide, appears practically impossible.

Therefore, the voter turnout declared by the EC may reasonably be considered erroneous or manipulated, and the results based on it may be questionable.

Realistic Voter Turnout

Let us examine what number of voters could realistically be accommodated within the available infrastructure and time.

Data gathered from various sources suggest that a voter requires at least 3 to 4 minutes to complete all formalities and cast two ballots.

• If each voter takes 3 minutes:
  A single booth can accommodate 180 voters (540 ÷ 3).
  Total voters across all booths: 180 × 2,44,659 = 4,40,38,620
  This equals 34.48% of total voters.

However, this assumes all booths operated at full capacity for the entire 9 hours—an unlikely scenario. Reports suggest that booths were empty for at least half the time.

• Adjusted turnout (50% utilisation):
  4,40,38,620 ÷ 2 = 2,20,19,310 (17.24%)
• If each voter takes 4 minutes:
  A booth can accommodate 135 voters (540 ÷ 4).
  Total voters: 135 × 2,44,659 = 3,30,28,965
  This equals 25.86%.
• Adjusted turnout (50% utilisation):
  1,65,14,482.5 (12.93%)
• Combined average scenario:
  Assuming half the voters took 3 minutes and half took 4 minutes, with booths active half the time:
  Total turnout ≈ 1,92,66,896
  Percentage turnout ≈ 15.08%

Thus, approximately 2 crore voters, or around 15% of the electorate, may have actually participated.

Abstention and Allegations of Manipulation

Based on this estimate, the number of abstentions would be:
12,77,11,793 − 1,92,66,896 ≈ 10,84,44,897

This suggests that nearly 11 crore voters, or about 85% of the electorate, did not vote.

The difference between the EC’s figure and the estimated turnout indicates that approximately 5,66,44,994 votes may have been artificially added.

This raises serious concerns about electoral integrity. Such discrepancies could serve two possible purposes: first, to project the election as participatory—though not inclusive—to enhance its acceptability as “free”; and second, more alarmingly, to inflate votes in favour of certain candidates in line with a pre-determined outcome. If so, the election may be seen more as a ‘selection’ than a genuine democratic exercise. A similar pattern was observed during the 12th Parliamentary election.

It is also important to examine why such a large section of the population abstained. Possible reasons include a lack of inclusivity, disillusionment with outcomes, or the absence of preferred candidates or parties.

One notable point is that Awami League (AL) supporters and minority community voters reportedly did not vote for any of the contesting parties. This narrative may have been constructed to justify inflated vote counts. It may also suggest that none of the contesting parties—including the BNP, Jamaat alliances, and others—command the level of public support often claimed. Additionally, it can be inferred that communal politics has not achieved the level of social penetration in Bangladesh as was talked about.

(The author is Chairman, Jatiyo Party, Bangladesh. It was founded on 1 January 1986 by then Bangladeshi president Hussain Muhammad Ershad and was the ruling party of the country between 1986 and 1990. Views expressed are entirely personal and not necessarily shared by editors of South Asia Monitor)