Election malpractices have been a glaring flaw in the working of modern democracies. The claim of democracies that they hold free and fair elections was punctured by Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin who said- “It’s not the people who vote that count, it’s the people who count the votes.”

An example of the misuse of power at election time is the grant of INR 10,000 to each woman, and getting the Election Commission to disenfranchise 4.7 million voters in the recent Legislative Assembly elections in the Indian state of Bihar .

The direct transfer of money to women was announced just before elections. And distribution took place even as voting was on. The ECI began its assigned task of pruning the electoral rolls through a Special Intensive Revision (ECI) just before the elections.

It started off by eliminating 6.5 million voters out of the total of 74 million voters. But due to the Supreme Court, it had to slash the elimination to 4.7 million eventually. Even so, the disenfranchisement was glaring in the light of the norm that under the universal adult franchise system the voter list should be inclusive.

Democracies are aware of such misuse of power and have devised norms and mechanisms to fight malpractices stemming from an insatiable greed for power.

Among the mechanisms is a non-party and politically neutral, Caretaker Government (CG) system set up at election time to ensure that there is no misuse of power to gain undue electoral advantage. The CG system has been tried out in Bangladesh and Pakistan, though with mixed results.

On November 20, the Bangladesh Supreme Court restored the nonpartisan CG system that had been abandoned in 2011. However, the coming parliamentary elections in February 2026 will be conducted by the incumbent government led by Dr.Muhammad Yunus.

This is because this government is deemed to be a “non-partisan Interim Government” to function between the ouster of the Awami League regime in August 2024 and fresh elections slated for February 2026.

The CG system was introduced in Bangladesh in 1996 on the unanimous demand of political parties. It was the result of an all-party struggle against the 10-year rule of military dictator Gen. H.M. Ershad. The struggle ended with the exit of Ershad in 1990 but the CG system did not come into being immediately because the post-Ershad government led by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) did not implement it.

Four years later, in 1994, the then main opposition parties, the Awami League and Jamaat-i-Islami, gave the BNP a deadline of December 27, 1994 to accept their demand for a CG. When the deadline was not met, 147 MPs of the Awami League and other parties resigned.

A violent movement led by the Awami League forced Prime Minister Khaleda Zia to introduce the “Caretaker Government bill” in Parliament on March 21, 1996. The bill was passed five days later, and Parliament was dissolved on March 30,1996.

Chief Justice Habibur Rahman became the head of a Caretaker Government and parliamentary elections were held. The Awami League was elected and Sheikh Hasina became Prime Minister.

The next parliamentary election was conducted by a CG led by former Chief Justice Latifur Rahman. In that election, the BNP won and Khaleda Zia became Prime Minister again. However, the next CG led by KM Hasan Sahib, was controversial because of his close association with the BNP.

An Awami League-Jamaat -i-Islami agitation followed. Forty people were killed in the violence in Paltan on October 28, 2006. KM Hasan Saheb resigned.

The BNP government then appointed Iazuddin Ahmed. But he too was a BNP man. The Awami League and the people again agitated, forcing Iazuddin to resign. Martial Law was imposed and Fakhruddin Ahmed was made head of the Caretaker Government.

It was under Fakhruddin Ahmed’s leadership that the ninth parliamentary elections were held. The Awami League won and formed the government with a two-thirds majority.

Sheikh Hasina used her massive mandate to abolish the CG system in 2011 through the 15th Constitutional Amendment. In this she had the backing of the Supreme Court which questioned the legitimacy of the non-party CG system in the light of the norms of parliamentary democracy. In a parliamentary democracy unelected persons could not govern the State.

Appointing the most recently retired Chief Justice as the head of the CG, would also be a violation of parliamentary democracy. The impartiality of the CG could not be guaranteed if a just-retired Chief Justice was made head of the CG.

The jurisdiction of the CG was also a sticking point. Historically, caretaker administrations in Bangladesh were given limited authority to govern. However, given past instances of overreach, particularly under Fakhruddin Ahmed, there were calls for clearer constitutional guardrails to prevent unelected interim governments from exceeding their mandate.

Professor Ali Riaz, who is now vice president of the Bangladesh National Consensus Commission, set up by the Interim Government has said that while political parties broadly support reviving the caretaker framework (883% do according to a survey ), they are divided over the extent of its authority and specific powers.

The method for appointing the head of the CG continues to be a divisive issue. Currently, the BNP and the National Citizen Party (NCP) are arguing for a fully political, consensus-based mechanism, rejecting any judicial or Presidential role. In contrast, the Jamaat-e-Islami supports the appointment of retired Supreme Court justices. Other proposals include the creation of an All-Party Parliamentary Committee or even a National Constitutional Council to nominate the head of the CG.

Constitutional challenges also persist. Bangladesh’s current constitution does not provide for an unelected interim government. Therefore, the constitution has to be amended. An amendment is needed even to legalise the current Yunus government. But only an elected parliament can do these.

The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion has been sought to clarify whether the present Yunus-led interim administration can be ratified retroactively.

Political observers warn that unless all these questions are resolved, the caretaker system could once again face a legitimacy crisis.

The Awami League government of Sheikh Hasina oversaw the elections held in 2014, 2018 and 2024 without a CG and won all. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) headed by former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, boycotted the 2014 and 2024 elections demanding the restoration of the CG system. Hasina rejected the demand.

The elections became so controversial that they were among the reasons why she was overthrown in 2024.

As regards the Caretaker Government system in Pakistan, it was not mentioned in the 1973 Constitution, nor its predecessors, the 1956 and 1962 Constitutions.

The concept of a CG was added to the 1973 Constitution by the military dictator, Gen. Ziaul Haq, in 1985, through the Revival of Constitution of 1973 Order, 1985 (RCO for short).

Gen. Zia was motivated to bring in the CG system because of the brazen rigging of the 1977 election and the subsequent imposition of martial law. Gen Ayub Khan’s rigging the 1965 election to defeat Fatima Jinnah, was also a factor.

On the question of appointing the CG’s head (called Caretaker Prime Minister), Zia’s law said that in case there was no consensus within three days following the dissolution of the National Assembly, two nominees should be sent to a committee constituted by the Speaker of the Assembly.

In case of the failure of the committee to appoint a Caretaker Prime Minister within three days of referral, the nominees shall be referred to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) for final decision within two days.

In 2013, the Pakistan Supreme Court said in the Khawaja Muhammad Asif vs Federation of Pakistan case, that the CG has limited powers and authority. He cannot make major policy decisions, appointments, transfers, or promotions that will affect the future elected government.

The court also observed that there were no guidelines or parameters to regulate the CG’s activities, and that such guidelines should be provided by parliament or the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

In 2017, the National Assembly passed the Election Act, 2017, in which Section 230 specified the powers and functions of the CG. Basically, the CG can perform only the day-to-day administrative functions and assist the ECP in conducting elections in accordance with the law.

Section 230 prohibits the taking of major policy decisions that might infringe upon the authority of the future elected government, entering into significant contracts or agreements that could be detrimental to the public interest, engaging in substantial international negotiations with foreign countries or international agencies or ratifying international binding agreements, except in exceptional cases.

It also prohibits giving promotions or making significant appointments of public officials, though acting or short-term appointments can be made in the public interest.

Transferring public officials without considering its expediency and obtaining the commission’s approval is also prohibited. Attempting to influence the election process or engaging in any activity that might impact or negatively influence free and fair elections is, of course, banned.

But all these provisions were observed in the breach because political considerations outweighed all other considerations, be it egal or moral. There is also an underlying fear of the hand of the ubiquitous and dominant power of the military called “The Establishment.” The ECP also has not been neutral.

Caretaker Governments are not a panacea for ensuring free and fair elections. But the main obstacle to holding free and fair elections is not the CG or the country’s laws, it is the powerful military establishment that has had a history of meddling in politics and undermining civilian governments.

Also, in weak polities like Pakistan and Bangladesh, technocrats, retired judges and bureaucrats are highly susceptible to partisan or external pressures.

Therefore, the solution to the problem of holding free and fair elections lies in strengthening political parties, enlightening voters, and constantly and thoroughly scrutinizing the Election Commissions.

Latest News