When Institutions Lose Neutrality: Electoral Violence and Democratic Transition in Bangladesh

Abstract

Electoral violence is a major obstacle to democratic consolidation and peaceful political transition in Bangladesh. This article explores how perceived institutional weakness and lack of neutrality are related to electoral violence and problems of democratic transition. The study has been conducted through a quantitative cross-sectional survey of 197 respondents from all eight administrative divisions of Bangladesh, and explores the perception of rule of law, partisan administration, effectiveness of the Election Commission, neutrality of law-enforcement agencies, independence of judiciary, democratic institutions and institutional reform. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, reliability analysis, composite means, Chi-square tests, one-way ANOVA and Pearson correlation. The findings suggest that 93.9% of the respondents perceived electoral violence as a serious political problem and 91.4% of the respondents’ admitted difficulties for peaceful political transition. Weak rule of law (M = 4.6837) and partisan administration (M = 4.6701) were the top-rated transition-related factors. Seventy-one percent thought the Election Commission was ineffective or very ineffective, and 65.0% believed law-enforcement agencies were not neutral during elections. And 60.9% thought democratic institutions were not strong enough. The respondents were highly supportive of institutional reform. The depoliticization of public administration was the highest priority. Transition factors correlated strongly with preferences for institutional reform (r = .891, p < .001). These findings are interpreted as evidence of a perceived institutional neutrality deficit: the gap between formal existence of democratic institutions and confidence in their impartiality, effectiveness, and credibility. The study argues that credible electoral administration is necessary for strengthening democratic transition, but so too are rule of law, judicial independence, impartial law enforcement, professional public administration and wider institutional accountability.