Elections and South Asia’s Democracy Fault Lines

Representative Image by Wix AI

After unexpected political catastrophes Myanmar, Bangladesh and Nepal are amidst a polls rush, will these bring about transformation for the people of these countries or will light at the end of the tunnel remain a flicker?

Democracies are stable because citizens can elect leaders at regular intervals, in contrast to other forms of governance where Presidents may remain in power for years if not decades China and Russia being the most recent examples though each of the top leaders were elected in some form. The phrase "absolute power corrupts absolutely" is often invoked to describe authoritarian regimes, and numerous contemporary examples exist where leaders have manipulated systems to retain power for decades.

Except for Afghanistan, South Asian countries hold regular elections; however, recent years have revealed significant weaknesses, resulting in political upheavals and the collapse of elected governments, most notably in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Nepal.

The democratic charter in these countries failed to provide voters with a genuine choice of leadership. A recurring issue is political monopoly maintained by a narrow elite, which restricts the emergence of alternatives.

In Sri Lanka, for example, the Rajapaksa brothers and Ranil Wickremesinghe dominated government leadership for decades. Only after the Aragalaya protests of 2022 were they removed from power.

Nepal presents a similar scenario, where Sher Bahadur Deuba has served multiple terms as prime minister, even as the nation transitioned from monarchy to republic. His continued influence, along with that of K. P. Sharma Oli, was challenged by Gen Z-led protests in September the previous year, disrupting the established political order. Deuba's reluctance to hold a party convention, which resulted in a split with youth leaders and enabled the younger Gagan Thapa led Nepali Congress to gain recognition from the Election Commission for the March 5 polls, further illustrates resistance to change. Recently, a new generation of leaders, including former Kathmandu Mayor Balendra Shah, have entered Nepalese politics, offering the electorate a broader choice. Whether these new leaders can successfully challenge the entrenched political elite remains uncertain for they too have the embellishments of power.

Bangladesh is another case in point where, having evicted an elected leader who had purportedly won polls three times in a row with an overwhelming margin – Sheikh Hasina, through a youth-led protest in July August 2024, there was hope for a change.

Yet the favourite to win the polls is the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), led by a “nominated” Chairman, Tarique Rahman, who returned from exile to take up the reins even as his mother, long-time chairman and former Prime Minister, Khaleda Zia, succumbed to protracted illness. A dramatic post election transformation in Bangladesh is thus unlikely, as genuine reform is not evident despite attempts to structure one through a flawed referendum, which is unlikely to be understood by the people at large, given the complex options on offer.

Rehman, who was charged with multiple cases of corruption and conspiring in a 2004 grenade attack, living in exile, returned after he was given a clean chit by the courts in  Bangladesh, indicating the degree of institutional complicity. 

He is likely to be the next prime minister, and expecting genuine reforms despite many statements made during the current campaign may be far-fetched.

Continuity, rather than transformation, is the more realistic trajectory unless meaningful political and institutional changes occur.

India also demonstrates the persistence of established leaders and political dynasties, with limited opportunities for new alternatives to emerge. Intra-party elections are often predetermined, with nominations made in advance and formal polls conducted primarily to satisfy constitutional requirements. For example, in Maharashtra, following the untimely death of a prominent party leader, his wife was promptly nominated and sworn in as Deputy Chief Minister, even before the official mourning period had concluded. This decision prioritised emotional appeal over procedural propriety, precluding the consideration of alternative candidates.

Myanmar and Pakistan present atypical cases. In Myanmar, the military seized power in a coup five years ago and conducted elections widely regarded as non-participatory and manipulated by the ruling authorities. The continuation of the ongoing civil war appears inevitable, despite the elections, with China and Russia having endorsed the polls. India has been so far silent. In Pakistan, elections are routinely orchestrated by the military to ensure that parties supportive of the Army's role as a power broker prevail. No wonder than that Pakistan is a permanent member of the IMF Bailout group.

It is only when the mindset of feudalism is broken, and political power loses its lustre for the high and mighty who are willing to let alternatives emerge, can people make a genuine choice and institutional freedoms, including for the media emerge that transformation will occur in South Asia.