Bangladesh's Election: Another Western Lens on South Asia's Democratic Processes

The Regional Context and Electoral Cascade

Bangladesh’s February 12 general election represents the opening act of South Asia’s 2026 political season, serving as a crucial indicator for subsequent electoral contests across the region. This electoral cascade will directly influence Nepal’s general election scheduled for March 5, followed by state elections in India’s West Bengal and Assam between March and May. The significance of Bangladesh going first cannot be overstated in a region where political narratives frequently cross borders and shape electoral outcomes in neighboring nations.

This election occurs against a backdrop of profound transformation following the ousting of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina through a student-led mass uprising in August 2024—part of a broader wave of Gen Z-led protests that swept across South and Southeast Asia. The political landscape is further complicated by deepening social polarization, rising religious extremism, and economic challenges that extend beyond Bangladesh’s borders. The leading contenders—the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), Jamaat-e-Islami, and the National Citizen Party (NCP)—represent sharply divergent political trajectories with regional implications.

Nepal: Comparative Democratic Experiments

Nepal approaches its March elections following its own period of upheaval characterized by youth-driven mobilization, corruption frustrations, and anti-establishment forces. Both Nepal and Bangladesh share striking demographic similarities with median ages around twenty-eight, creating parallel conditions for youth-led political movements. These movements have been fueled by persistent inflation eroding purchasing power, chronic youth unemployment, demographic surges unmatched by job opportunities, and deep resentment toward corruption and dynastic politics.

However, a critical distinction emerges: Nepal’s elections remain broadly inclusive with no parties formally excluded, while Bangladesh’s election sees the effectively barred participation of the Awami League that ruled from 2009-2024. This fundamental difference allows Nepal’s Gen Z movements to potentially translate protest into participation rather than rupture, using Bangladesh’s experience as a cautionary tale about how protest-driven transitions can harden into exclusion rather than renewal.

West Bengal: Bangladesh as Political Proxy

In India’s West Bengal, Bangladesh functions not merely as a neighboring country but as a central reference point in domestic political contests. The ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) portrays itself as the last major eastern citadel resisting the expansion of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), while the BJP casts West Bengal as the next fortress to fall—using Bangladesh as the rhetorical lever for this political siege.

Bangladesh becomes a domestic political proxy through which citizenship, demography, and belonging are contested. The BJP collapses cross-border history into narratives of undocumented migration and demographic threat, while the TMC recasts this rhetoric as an external imposition that misunderstands the region’s social fabric. Recent developments like the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and intensified anti-migration rhetoric ensure that any instability in Bangladesh will directly feed into West Bengal’s campaign narrative.

Assam: Existential Demographic Anxieties

For Assam, Bangladesh represents decades-old reference points in debates over ethnic identity, political belonging, and demographic survival. Long before the current election cycle, Assamese politics has been shaped by fears of cultural dilution and political marginalization rooted in migration across porous borders—anxieties that crystallized in movements like the Assam Agitation and never fully receded from political consciousness.

Current Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has repeatedly invoked historical memory, linking Bangladesh to Assam’s demographic future, border security, and the vulnerability of the Siliguri Corridor—the crucial “chicken’s neck” connecting India’s mainland to its northeastern states. In this context, Bangladesh’s election becomes not distant foreign news but a proximate signal feeding narratives about migration flows and the durability of Assamese political authority.

The Hasina Factor and Regional Implications

The unresolved status of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, living in exile in India since August 2024, adds another layer of complexity. Her presence remains politically catalytic, with Dhaka formally requesting extradition—especially after her November 2025 death sentence in absentia—while New Delhi has refused to comply. For Bangladeshi youth activists, this reinforces claims that remnants of the former regime survive through external backing, while complicating India’s claim to neutrality.

The “Hasina factor” carries significant implications across the region: fueling BJP claims in West Bengal that regional instability requires strong national oversight, reinforcing narratives in Assam about centralized security threat management, and serving as a cautionary tale for Nepal about how regional hegemons inevitably influence neighbors’ domestic political trajectories during transitional moments.

Western Gaze and Neo-Colonial Frameworks

This analysis cannot be complete without addressing the fundamental problem: the persistent Western framing of South Asian democratic processes through neo-colonial lenses. The very notion that Bangladesh’s election “sets the tone” for the region reflects imperialist thinking that seeks to create hierarchical relationships between sovereign nations. This framing treats South Asia as a monolithic entity whose political development must be measured against Western-defined standards of democracy and stability.

The Western obsession with monitoring and analyzing Global South elections often serves as a subtle form of political manipulation. By positioning themselves as arbiters of democratic legitimacy, Western institutions and media create narratives that can be weaponized against nations pursuing independent political paths. The constant scrutiny of Bangladesh’s electoral inclusivity while ignoring how Western nations systematically exclude alternative political voices represents breathtaking hypocrisy.

The Civilizational State Perspective

Civilizational states like India and China understand that political development cannot be constrained by Western neoliberal democratic models. The Westphalian nation-state system, imposed through colonialism, continues to serve Western interests by dividing historically connected regions into manageable units that can be individually influenced and controlled. South Asia’s interconnected political dynamics demonstrate how artificial these colonial borders remain, and how regional politics naturally transcend these imposed boundaries.

The youth-led movements across Bangladesh and Nepal represent not problems to be managed but authentic organic political developments emerging from local conditions and historical contexts. To frame these movements through Western security concerns or democratic transition paradigms is to fundamentally misunderstand their nature and significance. These are not movements seeking Western approval but expressions of popular will against corrupt and ineffective governance structures.

The Imperialist Double Standard

The Western focus on election “integrity” in South Asia stands in stark contrast to the silence surrounding democratic deficiencies in the West itself. Where is the comparable analysis of how moneyed interests control Western political systems? Where is the examination of how electoral systems in the United States and Europe systematically exclude alternative voices and maintain establishment power structures?

The narrative that Bangladesh’s election might not be “fully inclusive” because the Awami League is effectively barred ignores how Western political systems regularly exclude significant political movements through legal and structural barriers. This selective application of democratic standards reveals the neo-colonial nature of international election monitoring, which serves to maintain Western ideological dominance rather than support genuine political development.

Towards Authentic Regional Cooperation

South Asia must develop its own frameworks for understanding and supporting democratic development, free from Western paternalism and neo-colonial interference. The region’s nations share historical connections, cultural continuities, and political challenges that require regional solutions rather than external imposition. The BRICS framework and other South-South cooperation mechanisms offer promising alternatives to Western-dominated political analysis.

The youth movements emerging across South Asia represent the region’s best hope for transcending colonial legacies and creating authentically indigenous political systems. These movements understand local realities in ways that Western analysts cannot, and they carry the potential to create political structures that serve their people rather than external interests.

Conclusion: Rejecting External Frameworks

The 2026 election season in South Asia should be understood on its own terms, not through Western analytical frameworks designed to maintain neo-colonial influence. Bangladesh’s election, and those that follow in Nepal and India, represent moments of political expression that reflect the region’s complex reality and aspirations. To reduce these processes to mere indicators of regional stability or democratic quality is to profoundly misunderstand their significance.

We must reject the imperialist notion that South Asia’s political development requires Western monitoring or approval. The region’s nations are perfectly capable of managing their political affairs and supporting each other’s democratic development through regional cooperation mechanisms. The future of South Asian politics lies in solidarity against external interference and the creation of authentically indigenous political models that serve the people rather than external powers.

The youth leading political transformations across South Asia understand this fundamental truth better than any Western analyst. Their movements represent not just political change but the rejection of colonial mentalities and the embrace of truly sovereign futures. As we observe the unfolding electoral processes across the region, we should do so with respect for South Asia’s right to self-determination and rejection of Western frameworks that seek to maintain neo-colonial control.