DistantNews
Support us
🇧🇩 Bangladesh /Elections & Politics

[object Object]

From Daily Star · () English

Summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.

At a glance

News Named sources Context piece
  • Independent lawmaker Rumeen Farhana abstained from voting in the presidential election, deeming the process "meaningless."
  • She cited the lack of uncertainty in the outcome, the failure to nominate a broadly acceptable non-political candidate after a recent "mass uprising," and the constitutional threat of losing her seat for voting against party decisions as reasons for her boycott.
  • Farhana believes the election was a "nomination" rather than a true vote, especially given the BNP's stance on Article 70 of the constitution, which she feels undermines their own "Vision 2030."

Rumeen Farhana, an independent lawmaker representing Brahmanbaria-2, refused to cast her ballot in the recent presidential election, describing the entire exercise as "meaningless." Speaking from her home in Shahbazpur village, Brahmanbaria, Farhana outlined three primary reasons for her abstention.

The presidential election seemed meaningless to me. If there is no uncertainty over the outcome, it cannot be called an election. Everyone already knows what the result will be. So, why should I call it a vote? This is a nomination, not an election.

— Rumeen FarhanaExplaining her primary reason for abstaining from the presidential election.

Her first objection centered on the perceived lack of genuine electoral contest. "The presidential election seemed meaningless to me," she stated. "If there is no uncertainty over the outcome, it cannot be called an election. Everyone already knows what the result will be. So, why should I call it a vote? This is a nomination, not an election."

Farhana's second reason highlighted a missed opportunity for national consensus. She questioned why, following a recent "mass uprising" that carried "immense national sacrifice and carried so many hopes and aspirations," the political parties could not collectively nominate a non-political and broadly acceptable figure for the presidency.

We have just gone through a major mass uprising that involved immense national sacrifice and carried so many hopes and aspirations. So why could we not collectively nominate a non-political and broadly acceptable person for the presidency?

— Rumeen FarhanaQuestioning the failure to nominate a consensus candidate after recent national events.

The lawmaker considered her third reason the most significant. She pointed to the contradiction between the BNP's "Vision 2030," which the party has strongly advocated since 2016, and its recent threat to lawmakers regarding Article 70 of the constitution. This article mandates that a lawmaker voting against their party's decision will lose their seat. "Now it says that voting against the party’s decision would result in a lawmaker losing their seat. Why should I take part in such a farcical election?" she asked, expressing her dismay at the situation.

Before the presidential election, BNP threatened us with Article 70 of the constitution. Yet since 2016, the party has strongly advocated its ‘Vision 2030.’ Now it says that voting against the party’s decision would result in a lawmaker losing their seat. Why should I take part in such a farcical election?

— Rumeen FarhanaDetailing her third and most important reason for boycotting the election, citing constitutional threats and party contradictions.
DistantNews Editorial

Originally published by Daily Star. Summarized and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.

More Stories

From Our Blog