Elections

Voters in Japan are casting their ballots in a parliamentary election expected to deliver a resounding victory for Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s conservative coalition.

The snap vote on Sunday comes as Takaichi seeks a new mandate to push through an ambitious agenda, including increased defence spending and tougher immigration measures.

The coalition of Takaichi’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and the Japan Innovation Party, known as Ishin, could win more than 300 of the 465 seats in the lower house of parliament, according to multiple opinion polls.

The figure would mark a substantial gain from ⁠the 233 it is defending.

The opposition, despite the formation of a new centrist alliance and a rising far-right, is seen as too splintered to be a real challenger.

Takaichi, 64, is Japan’s first female prime minister and took office in October after being selected as the LDP’s leader. The ultraconservative politician has pledged to “work, work, work”, and her style – seen as both playful and tough – has resonated with younger voters.

She has said she will step down if the LDP fails to win a majority.

Rising cost of living

Voters on Sunday will select lawmakers in 289 single-seat constituencies, with the remainder decided by proportional representation votes for parties. Polls close at 8pm local time (11:00 GMT), when broadcasters are expected to issue projections based on exit polls.

The rising cost of living has taken centre stage in the election.

The issue is voters’ main concern, with prices rising while real wage growth lags behind inflation, leaving households worse off. Japan also faces longstanding problems with sluggish economic growth. The economy expanded just 1.1 percent last year and is on track to grow by only 0.7 percent in 2026, according to the International Monetary Fund.

Takaichi has promised to suspend the 8 percent sales tax on food for two years to help households cope with rising prices.

The pledge follows the approval last year of Japan’s largest stimulus package since the COVID-19 pandemic, a 21.3 trillion yen ($136bn) injection into the economy, heavily focused on cost-of-living relief measures, including energy bill subsidies, cash handouts and food vouchers.

Takaichi has also promised to revise security and defence policies by December to bolster Japan’s offensive military capabilities, lifting a ban on weapons exports and moving further away from the country’s post-war pacifist principles. She has been pushing for tougher immigration policies, including stricter requirements for foreign property owners and a cap on foreign residents.

Al Jazeera’s Patrick Fok, reporting from Tokyo, said Takaichi, who is favoured by a majority of voters under the age of 30, is hoping to capitalise on her “tremendous popularity” and secure a landslide victory for her coalition.

“That result – if indeed that’s how it turns out – will mark a remarkable turnaround, really, for the LDP. Months ago, it was a party in disarray. It had lost its parliamentary majority and was embroiled in a slush fund scandal. So, this turnaround has very much been engineered by Takaichi and what some describe as an almost cult-like popularity,” Fok said.

Sunday’s vote comes amid record snowfall in parts of the country. With up to 70cm (27.5 inches) of snow forecast in northern and eastern regions, some voters will have to battle blizzards to cast their ballots. The election is only the third post-war vote held in February, with polls typically called during milder months.

Fok said the heavy snowfall could affect voter turnout, but “there’s no suggestion that’s going to impact the outcome of the election”.

“A lot of people feel that the opposition parties are not offering anything substantially different. And perhaps they feel that Takaichi’s economic agenda will boost the country in the long term,” he said.

“She has a growth-oriented strategy. She wants to develop sectors like AI and semiconductors, and accelerate defence spending. Voters are perhaps betting on that unlocking the keys to stagnant wage growth in this country, and in turn, [to] counter rising inflation that they are experiencing here.”

Foreign policy

A landslide win for Takaichi’s coalition would also likely prompt a shift in foreign policy.

“It will allow her to do two fundamentally important things,” said Stephen Nagy, a professor of politics and international studies at the International Christian University.

“The first thing is to invest in the Japan-United States alliance, tighten its partnership, and secure that relationship,” he told Al Jazeera. “Second, it will allow her to take a more realistic approach to China by balancing engagement through trade and trying to deal with regional challenges, such as terrorism or climate change, and also resilience and deterrence policy.”

Nagy noted that Takaichi received the endorsement of US President Donald Trump on Thursday and called the move a “mixed blessing”.

On one hand, the Japanese public has been worried about Trump’s tariffs and his overtures to China.

“If he is going to create a G-2 relationship with China, this is going to come at the expense of Japan’s security and ordinary citizens’ idea of security in the region,” Nagy said.

On the other hand, the Trump endorsement helps because the Japanese public “are used to the strongest and most robust Japan-US alliance over the past 80 years” and believe that Takaichi will bring stability and forge a stronger relationship with Washington, he said.

As Thailand prepares to vote on Sunday in a nationwide election, the country’s months-long border dispute with Cambodia continues to cast a shadow over election proceedings.

Brief but deadly armed clashes in May last year on a disputed section of the Thai-Cambodia border escalated into the deadliest fighting in a decade between the two countries, killing dozens of people and displacing hundreds of thousands.

Fallout from the conflict toppled the government of Thailand’s Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra – daughter of the billionaire populist leader Thaksin Shinawatra – before bringing Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul to power in September.

Now, while the fighting may have ceased, the conflict remains an emotive topic for Thais and a means for Anutin to rally support for his conservative Bhumjaithai Party as a no-nonsense prime minister, unafraid to flex his country’s military muscle when required, analysts say.

“Anutin’s party is positioning itself as the party that’s really willing to take the initiative on the border conflict,” said Napon Jatusripitak, an expert in Thai politics at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore.

“It’s a party that has taken the strongest stance on the issue and the most hawkish,” Napon said of the recent military operations.

Anutin had good reason to focus on the conflict with Cambodia in his election campaign. The fighting created a surge in nationalist sentiment in Thailand during two rounds of armed conflict in July and December, while the clashes also inflicted reputational damage on Anutin’s rivals in Thai politics.

Chief among those who suffered on the political battlefield was the populist Pheu Thai Party, the power base of Thailand’s former prime minister Thaksin and his family.

Pheu Thai sustained a major hit to its popularity in June when a phone call between its leader, then-Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn, and the strongman of Cambodian politics, Hun Sen, was made public.

In the June 15 call, Paetongtarn referred to Hun Sen, an erstwhile friend of her father, as “uncle” and promised to “take care” of the issue after the first early clashes between Thai and Cambodian troops, according to Reuters news agency.

For factions in Thailand’s politics and Thai people, Paetongtarn’s deference to Hun Sen was beyond the pale of acceptable behaviour for a prime minister, especially as she appeared to also criticise Thailand’s military – a major centre of power in a nation of more than 70 million people.

Hun Sen later admitted to leaking the call and claimed it was in the interest of “transparency,” but it led to the collapse of Paetongtarn’s government. She was then sacked by the constitutional court at the end of August last year, paving the way for Anutin to be voted in as Thailand’s leader by parliament the following month.

The border conflict with Cambodia has given a major boost to Thailand’s armed forces at a time of “growing popular discontent with the military’s involvement in politics, and with the conservative elite”, said Neil Loughlin, an expert in comparative politics at City St George’s, University of London.

Anutin’s government focused its political messaging when fighting on the border re-erupted in early December. Days later, he dissolved parliament in preparation for the election.

“Bhumjaithai has leaned into patriotic, nationalist messaging,” said Japhet Quitzon, an associate fellow with the Southeast Asia programme at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, DC.

“Anutin himself has promised to protect the country at campaign rallies, signalling strength in the face of ongoing tensions with Cambodia. He has vowed to retaliate should conflict re-emerge and will continue protecting Thai territorial integrity,” Quitzon said.

‘War against the scam army’

During the fighting, Thailand took control of several disputed areas on the border and shelled Cambodian casino complexes near the boundary, which it claimed were being used by Cambodia’s military.

Bangkok later alleged some of the casino complexes, which have ties to Cambodian elites, were being used as centres for online fraud – known as cyber scams – a major problem in the region, and that Thai forces were also carrying out a “war against the scam army” based in Cambodia.

Estimates by the World Health Organization say the conflict killed 18 civilians in Cambodia and 16 in Thailand, though media outlets put the overall death toll closer to 149, before both sides signed their most recent ceasefire in late December.

While the fighting has paused for now, its impact continues to reverberate across Thai politics, said the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute’s Napon.

Pheu Thai is still reeling from the leaked phone call between Paetongtarn and Hun Sen, while another Thai opposition group, the People’s Party, has been forced to temper some of its longstanding positions demanding reform in the military, Napon said.

“[The People’s Party] vowed to abolish the military’s conscription and to cut the military’s budget, but what the border conflict with Cambodia did was to elevate the military’s popularity to heights not seen in longer than a decade since the 2014 coup,” Napon told Al Jazeera.

“Its main selling point used to be reform of the military, but after the conflict it seems to be a liability,” Napon continued.

The party has now shifted its criticism from the military as an institution to specific generals, and turned its focus back to reviving the economy, which is expected to grow just 1.8 percent this year, according to the state-owned Krungthai Bank.

In the past two weeks, that messaging seems to be hitting home, Napon said, with the People’s Party once again leading at the polls despite a different platform from 2023.

“It will be very different from the previous election,” Napon said.

“Right now, there’s no military in the picture, so it’s really a battle between old and new,” he added.

The Algarve, Portugal – After fierce storms that brought days of torrential rain, the sun is finally out in Portugal’s Algarve.

In the coastal town of Portimao, cafe terraces are busy with people enjoying a respite from the bad weather. In nearby Albufeira, tourists, mostly from northern Europe in search of winter warmth, stroll on the sandy beach. The ocean is gleaming; the cliffs are topped with lush vegetation.

But behind the idyllic scenery is an increasingly disaffected population that may be on the cusp of embracing Portugal’s first right-wing nationalist president since the country’s dictatorship ended half a century ago.

The Algarve has long been a popular destination for holidaymakers, and tourism fuels much of the region’s economy. But it also pushes up housing prices and the cost of living, and attracts a high number of foreign workers. Some residents say they are fed up with the situation. Others will tell you wistfully that the Algarve is not what it once was.

Outside a supermarket in Albufeira, a man tells Al Jazeera he knows people who can barely pay their rent because salaries are so low. Another says that the Algarve and Portugal need change and new leadership.

The sense for many people here is that politicians in Lisbon are disconnected from the struggles of people outside of the capital. It is partly why the Algarve has become a stronghold for Andre Ventura’s far-right Chega party. Its anti-establishment and anti-immigration message resonates with voters here who feel unheard and unseen by mainstream parties.

A former TV football commentator, Ventura founded Chega, which means “Enough”, seven years ago. Since then, Chega’s made large gains in a region that has become a springboard for its leader’s ambitions, including the presidency.

Ventura is in the second round of the presidential run-off vote on February 8.  He is the first populist candidate in Portuguese history to make it that far. Ventura may well believe that momentum is on his side.

In the 2024 parliamentary elections, Chega grew to become the main opposition to the centre-right government of Luis Montenegro. Its rapid rise has shaken a political landscape long dominated by socialists and liberals. It has also rattled opponents and critics who believed Portugal was immune to the far-right surge seen elsewhere in Europe.

In Portimao and Albufeira, Ventura’s campaign billboards tower over roads and roundabouts. He is also a regular on TV shows and prolific on social media, much like Donald Trump, whom Ventura admires. Like the United States president, Ventura rails against immigration and immigrants. He has even been sanctioned by Portuguese courts for discriminatory comments.

Not everyone in the Algarve would welcome a Ventura presidency. At the Timing temporary employment agency in Albufeira, people come looking for work, mainly in the region’s many hotels and restaurants. Most are from outside Portugal.

Al Jazeera spoke with Tariq Ahmed and Saidul Islam Said from Bangladesh, and Gurjeet Singh from India. They work during the holiday season to save money. All say they like Portugal.

When asked whether they worry about Chega’s rhetoric, Saidul says he is aware of it but isn’t concerned for now. He says that every country has its problems and that he stays focused on work, not politics.

The agency has thousands of workers on its books, and about 70 percent come from abroad, says manager Ricardo Mariano. They work hard and are welcome, he says. He insists the Algarve could not function without immigrant labour and says neither could the rest of Portugal.

The country faces worker shortages in several industries. Portugal has a long tradition of emigration, and a lack of affordable housing, jobs and low wages mean young Portuguese people continue to seek opportunities abroad.

Successive socialist and liberal governments are viewed by some as having failed to reverse the trend. Nevertheless, it is a veteran socialist politician who faces Ventura in the presidential race. Antonio Jose Seguro has served as an MP, a junior minister and a member of the European Parliament.

He had retired from politics to teach but returned with a mission, saying he wanted to unite an increasingly divided country and defend Portugal’s institutions. Seguro says voters will have to choose between democracy and radicalism.

Opinion polls suggest Seguro could win, and several politicians from across the political spectrum are urging their supporters to rally behind him and block a Ventura victory. The presidential role is largely ceremonial, but it has the power to dissolve parliament or veto laws.

Back in Portimao, Chega MP Joao Graca is out campaigning for Ventura. He’s come to a food market wearing a suit jacket over a T-shirt printed with Ventura’s portrait.

He weaves through the stalls, chatting to sellers and shoppers. More than a dozen supporters chant behind him, enthusiastically handing out Chega pens and bags. The reception for them is noteworthy in that it is universally warm.

For some Portuguese voters, a Ventura win would be a disaster, widening divisions in society and destroying Portugal’s image as one of Europe’s most tolerant nations, but for Graca, it would be the best thing that could happen to the country. Portugal, he tells Al Jazeera, needs Ventura.

An array of political parties and alliances will be vying for seats in the Bangladesh Parliament on February 12 in the country’s first election since the ousting of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in 2024. About 127 million registered voters are eligible to cast votes to elect 350 members of the Jatiya Sangsad, the country’s parliament.

The South Asian country has been in the hands of a caretaker government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus since August 2024, when a student-led uprising ended Hasina’s long rule. Hasina ordered troops to crack down on protesters, killing 1,400 people. She has since been sentenced to death by a special tribunal in Bangladesh for the brutal crackdown, but remains in exile in India, and her Awami League party has been banned from political activity.

Besides the election on February 12, Bangladesh will also hold a referendum on the July National Charter 2025 – a document drafted following the student protests, setting the foundation for future governance of the country.

The two biggest groups competing for parliamentary seats across the country’s 300 constituencies are the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), which is leading a coalition of 10 parties, and Jamaat-e-Islami (JIB), which heads an 11-party alliance, including the National Citizen Party, a group formed by students who led the anti-Hasina movement in 2024. The Awami League, which dominated Bangladeshi politics for decades, has been barred from fielding candidates.

Besides the two main blocs, the Islami Andolan Bangladesh, which broke away from the JIB-led alliance, and the Jatiya Party, a longtime ally of Hasina’s Awami League, are contesting independently.

Here is a look at the main political parties and their leaders vying for parliament seats this year, and the key players influencing the election.

Bangladesh Nationalist Party

Led by Tarique Rahman, the son of the late former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, the BNP is seen as one of the main contenders in the upcoming elections.

The party was founded in 1978 by Ziaur Rahman, Tarique’s father and one of the leading military figures of the country’s independence war against Pakistan in 1971, on the principles of Bangladeshi nationalism. According to the BNP website, this is an “ideology that recognises the right of Bangladeshis from all walks of life, irrespective of their ethnicity, gender or race”.

As a centre-right political party, the BNP has been a popular political force in the country for decades and has traditionally exchanged power with the Awami League.

For four decades after Ziaur Rahman’s assassination in 1981, his wife and Tarique’s father, Khaleda Zia, led the party. Khaleda served as the country’s first female prime minister from 1991 to 1996 and again from 2001 to 2006. In that period, Jamaat was an ally of the BNP as they together fought against Hasina’s Awami League.

After Hasina came back to power in 2009 – she had also ruled between 1996 and 2001 –  the BNP faced the wrath of her government over corruption charges, and Khaleda was put under house arrest in 2018 in two related cases. She was acquitted of all charges after Hasina’s departure in 2024.

Since Hasina’s ousting in 2024, the BNP has risen again as a political frontrunner. A December survey by the United States-based International Republican Institute indicated the BNP had the support of 33 percent of respondents. That was also the only month when the BNP — seeking to position itself as a liberal force ahead of the elections — broke its alliance with Jamaat. Polls show Jamaat just marginally behind the BNP in popular support.

Tarique, 60, had been living in London, United Kingdom, since he fled Bangladesh in 2008 over what he called politically motivated persecution. He arrived in Dhaka on December 25, 2025 to take over the BNP leadership ahead of his mother Khaleda’s death on December 30.

“We will build a Bangladesh that a mother dreams of,” he said in December after returning to the country and calling on citizens from the hills and plains – Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Christians – to join him in creating a secure and inclusive nation.

In election rallies, he has pledged to improve the country’s infrastructure, among other promises.

“If elected, the healthcare system will be improved, a flyover will be constructed in Sherpur, permanent embankments will be built in the river erosion areas of Dhunat, and the youth will be made self-reliant through the establishment of IT education institutions,” he said.

According to Khandakar Tahmid Rejwan, lecturer in global studies and governance at the Independent University, Bangladesh, since Rahman’s return, the BNP has become more organised.

“The party has basically revived with a newfound spirit in both its central and grassroots-level leadership,” he said.

“Typical objections against BNP and affiliated party activists, like [allegations of] extortion … have also significantly declined. Top leaders of the central committee have also been comparatively cautious to avoid any statement that might create popular outrage. Significantly, the people are flocking in thousands to hear from Rahman at his electoral rally, even late at midnight,” he said.

Rejwan added that it is widely believed that Rahman is the only man who can currently unite Bangladesh with an “inclusive vision”, unlike his Jamaat rivals, who have failed to address any clear stance or acknowledge what are seen by many as their restrictive policies towards women and religious minorities.

Jamaat-e-Islami

The party was founded in 1941 by Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi during British rule in India.

In 1971, during Bangladesh’s war of independence, Jamaat supported staying with Pakistan, and was banned after the country won its freedom.

But in 1979, four years after the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who had fought for Bangladesh’s independence and is seen by many as the country’s founding father, BNP founder Ziaur Rahman, who was the country’s president at the time, lifted the ban. Ziaur Rahman was also assassinated in 1981.

Over the next two decades, Jamaat developed into a significant political force. It supported the BNP-led coalition in 1991 and 2001.

But while Hasina was in power from 2009 until she was toppled in student-led protests in 2024 and fled to India, five top Jamaat leaders were executed, while others were jailed for crimes committed during the independence war of 1971. The party was barred in 2013 from running in elections.

In June 2025, the country’s Supreme Court restored the party’s registration, paving the way for its participation in elections.

While Jamaat no longer has an alliance with the BNP, its current leader, 67-year-old Shafiqur Rahman, has also focused on reorganising the party into a strong contender in the election.

Speaking at an election rally in Jamalpur city on Sunday, Shafiqur Rahman said the upcoming election “will be a turning point”.

“It is an election to end the cries of the families of martyrs. It is an election to bury the rotten politics of the past,” he said, according to The Daily Star newspaper.

But his party’s resurgence has also prompted debate over whether Bangladesh is prepared to be led by an Islamist force, which some fear could seek to enforce Islamic law or try to restrict women’s rights and freedoms.

However, Jamaat has rejected such fears and has told reporters it is focusing on expanding its electoral power. Last December, the party announced an alliance with the National Citizen Party, founded by 2024 leaders of the student-led uprising, and with the Liberal Democratic Party, led by 1971 war hero Oli Ahmad.

For the first time in its history, Jamaat is also fielding a Hindu candidate, Krishna Nandi, from Khulna, in a bid to attract non-Muslim voters.

The International Republican Institute survey suggested the Jamaat-led alliance at number two, with 29 percent, closely behind the BNP.

According to Independent University’s Rejwan, Jamaat has an appeal across Bangladesh’s social classes.

“Its student wing has literally outperformed any other political rivals in the university union elections. We are also seeing the Jamaat-affiliated women’s wing reaching out door-to-door in both rural and urban areas to expand their women’s base of voters. Moreover, since the fall of Hasina, we are seeing pro-Jamaat active and retired elites from security forces, university academics, and civil services constantly pushing the pro-Jamaat narratives within their respective capacities,” he said.

“Jamaat’s upper hand and pragmatic postures are now being extended to its allies, like NCP, which is explicitly reaping all the benefits of its senior partner in the alliance,” he added.

National Citizens Party (NCP)

The NCP, one of Jamaat’s allies, was formed in February 2025 by students who led the mass protests in July 2024 over government job quotas, which ultimately toppled Hasina’s government.

Seeking to stand for the 2026 elections, the leaders told a rally in February 2025 that they had formed the party “to uphold the spirit of the July movement among students”.

Led by Nahid Islam, 27, the stated ideals of the NCP are to ensure “governance without corruption” and to unite the country. The party says it aims to uphold freedom of the press, increase women’s representation in parliament and improve Bangladesh’s relations with neighbouring countries, such as India.

But lacking adequate funds to run by itself in an election, the party has allied with Jamaat. However, the move has been received poorly by some in Bangladesh. It also triggered some resignations by some NCP members over ideological differences.

According to local media reports, those members submitted a memorandum stating that Jamaat’s controversial political history and historical views against Bangladesh’s independence in 1971 were contrary to the NCP’s values.

In an interview with ABC News last month, Nahid Islam defended the decision to unite with Jamaat and said, “When we are forming an electoral alliance, we are not abandoning our own political beliefs. It’s just a strategic alliance.”

“It’s unfortunate to see the leader of the political party that arguably claims to own and lead the 2024 mass uprising and depose Hasina, now become a junior partner to a major political party,” Rejwan said.

“As a result, we see defections of many top leaders of NCP, and astonishingly, by allying, it was only able to bargain for 30 seats for its own candidate. To sum up, Nahid has sold his political autonomy and image of an exclusive figure by de facto becoming subservient to Jamaat,” he added.

Who are the other key players in the election?

Besides the main political parties, Muhammad Yunus, who currently leads the interim government, and General Waker-Uz-Zaman, the army chief, are also influential figures in this election.

Yunus, who was selected to run the government after Hasina’s ousting, is facilitating the election in his capacity as the country’s chief adviser.

But while political parties are campaigning for the election, Yunus is focusing on the referendum on the July Charter, which will take place on the same day.

After Hasina’s ousting, Yunus formed the Constitution Reform Commission (CRC) in 2025, seeking to amend the governance of the country. The commission proposed an anticorruption mechanism, electoral reforms and new rules the police must follow, among other issues. The July Charter is the culmination of the CRC’s work and takes its name from the protests which dismantled Hasina’s government in July 2024. Bangladeshis will vote to approve or reject it in the referendum.

Last month, Yunus expressed confidence in the results of the referendum and told the media he expected people and political parties to agree to the charter. But some critics have said holding the referendum and establishing the charter is not constitutional.

General Zaman is also a key player in the election.

Following the 1975 assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Bangladesh’s founding leader and then-president, the country entered a period marked by coups, countercoups and military rule, which reshaped the state.

Currently, the army is not vying for electoral power, but its focus will be on ensuring public order and security during the election, in light of political violence that has spread in the country since the upheaval of 2024.

The military also plays a role with respect to backing the political party in power or deciding how to govern the country during a political crisis.

In September 2024, after the protests against Hasina, Zaman told the Reuters news agency that he would back Yunus’s interim government “come what may”, while also floating a timeline for elections within 18 months, placing him central to the political debate.

A successful election will require goodwill from both Yunus and the army chief, according to Rejwan.

“Executives under the leadership of Yunus are critical to ensure the nationwide voting, while the Chief of Army Staff Waker’s forces, which would be deployed throughout the country, are indispensable to maintain public order and prevent the proliferation of political instability, violence and chaos,” he said.

Does Hasina have any power at all?

Hasina, who is currently in exile in India, has denounced the upcoming elections since her party, the Awami League, has not been allowed to take part. However, those who voted for her in the past must now choose how to vote this time.

In a message sent to the media last month, Hasina stated that “a government born of exclusion cannot unite a divided nation”.

“Each time political participation is denied to a significant portion of the population, it deepens resentment, delegitimises institutions and creates the conditions for future instability,” the former leader warned in an email to The Associated Press news agency.

Bangladesh’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it was “surprised and shocked” that Hasina had been allowed to make a public address in India. Her speeches and statements are banned from the media in Bangladesh.

“Allowing the event to take place in the Indian capital and letting mass murderer Hasina openly deliver her hate speech … constitute a clear affront to the people and the Government of Bangladesh,” the ministry said in a statement.

Hasina was sentenced to death in absentia by a tribunal in Bangladesh last November, and Dhaka has called on New Delhi to extradite her.

But she remains in India, and Rejwan says she will be a key political instigator of unrest as the elections approach.

“If Hasina were a negligible figure, then the interim government wouldn’t have banned all of her speeches and statements from being aired on television or printed in newspapers … the interim government would also not have reacted so firmly against India for allowing her to speak,” he noted.

“This means Hasina is a factor that the interim government implicitly believes has an influence over the Awami League populace, who are yet undecided on whom to cast their vote for, given that AL is banned from the polls,” he said.

“The reality is that AL has its own clear political ideology and a base of loyal cadres, many of whom have declined to change their allegiance despite living a harsh clandestine life in Bangladesh or abroad,” he added.

Bangkok, Thailand – The orange campaign buses of Thailand’s opposition People’s Party have been hard to miss in recent weeks, winding through cities and villages carrying reformist politicians on what they call the “Choose the Future” tour.

At rally stops, thousands have gathered to hear promises of change.

On social media, videos of the candidates have drawn millions of views.

For many, the support for the party before Sunday’s general election has stirred hope that the democratic future it promises may finally be within reach.

But in Thailand, winning an election does not guarantee the right to govern.

Known simply as the Orange party for its signature colour, the People’s Party is the latest incarnation of a progressive movement that has repeatedly clashed with Thailand’s royalist conservative establishment. Its predecessor won the last election in 2023, taking 151 seats in the 500-member House. Yet it was blocked from power by a military-appointed Senate and later dissolved by the Constitutional Court over its calls to curb the powers of the monarchy.

“Our ‘soldiers’ might have grown in number, but the conservative side’s arsenal is still devastatingly strong,” said Thankrit Duangmaneeporn, co-director of Breaking the Cycle, a documentary about the “Orange Movement”. But he said he hoped the party could still force the entrenched establishment into a compromise by demonstrating overwhelming support at the polls.

“We will fight at the ballot box on Sunday,” he said. “That is all we can do.”

Overturned mandates

For more than a quarter-century, Thailand – a nation of about 71 million people – has been trapped in a dispiriting loop. Reformist parties win elections, only to be removed by courts, coups or other interventions by judges, generals and tycoons, all loyal to the monarchy.

Many fear the pattern is about to repeat itself.

While opinion polls suggest the People’s Party will again win the most seats on Sunday, analysts say the conservative Bhumjaithai Party, led by caretaker Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, stands a better chance of forming a government.

A January 30 survey by the National Institute of Development Administration put the People’s Party leader, Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut, in first place for prime minister with 29.1 percent, followed by Anutin at 22.4 percent. For party lists, the People’s Party led with 34.2 percent, followed by Bhumjaithai at 22.6 percent. In third was Pheu Thai, the party of jailed former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, with 16.2 percent.

A candidate for the top job must secure the backing of 251 legislators. Unless the People’s Party can reach that threshold on its own, analysts say Bhumjaithai could manoeuvre – with the support of conservative power brokers, Pheu Thai and smaller parties – into forming the next government.

The People’s Party traces its roots to the Future Forward Party, founded in 2018 with a pledge to curb the influence of unelected institutions. It quickly became the most serious challenge to elite domination of Thai politics and the economy in a generation, winning 81 seats in its first election in 2019.

But it was disbanded by the courts the following year.

Reconstituted as Move Forward, the party went on to win the 2023 election — only to be dissolved again the next year.

‘We don’t use money to buy power’

Rukchanok Srinork, a 32-year-old lawmaker for the reborn People’s Party’s Bangbon District in Bangkok, said past defeats should not extinguish hopes. Speaking from a rally stop in the northern city of Chiang Mai, Rukchanok, who goes by the nickname “Ice”, said her party has already changed Thai politics.

“We are a party that won an election without spending a single baht on buying votes,” she told Al Jazeera, referring to the vote-buying practices that have long shaped Thailand’s elections, particularly in rural areas.

“We don’t use money to buy power,” she said.

Rukchanok’s own rise reflects the party’s appeal.

Once an online vendor, she built a following through social media critiques of corruption and military overreach, then entered the National Assembly on the strength of that support. Her story, she said, showed what could be possible in a fairer system.

“When people understand they have a role and that their voice matters, they won’t lose hope in politics,” Rukchanok said.

But that idealism might not be enough.

Prinya Thaewanarumitkul, a legal scholar at Thammasat University, warned that “money politics” could still tilt outcomes in rural areas, even if voters increasingly “take the money but vote with their heart”.

For the People’s Party, the possibility of forming a government “becomes real” only if it secures 200 seats or more, he added.

A conservative counteroffensive

Anutin, the caretaker prime minister, is the heir to a construction fortune and the face of Thailand’s cannabis legalisation. He became prime minister in August after the Constitutional Court removed his predecessor, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, over her handling of a border crisis with Cambodia.

Since then, he has skilfully exploited nationalist sentiment around the conflict, which killed 149 people on both sides before a ceasefire in December.

“Anyone can say ‘choose me and you won’t regret it,’” Anutin told a rally near the border with Cambodia this week. “But Bhumjaithai says that with the military on our side, we will never be defeated.”

Backed by the royalist establishment, Anutin has assembled a team of seasoned figures from business and diplomatic circles and drawn support from powerful political dynasties that trade their support for cabinet positions.

His party has also rolled out populist policies, including a subsidy programme that covers half the cost of food and has proved popular among struggling households and small businesses.

“I don’t know many other policies,” said Buapan Anusak, 56, at a recent Bhumjaithai rally in Bangkok. “But there also has to be a prime minister that’s patriotic,” she added, referring to the border tensions.

Bhumjaithai has also made inroads into territory once dominated by Pheu Thai, the party that won every election from 2001 until the People’s Party’s breakthrough in 2023.

Pheu Thai’s founder Thaksin, now 76, remains a hero to many for policies like universal healthcare. But Pheu Thai has lost its mantle as the voice of reform to the People’s Party, after it placed second in the last election and joined military-backed parties to form a government. Since then, two of its governments have collapsed, with two prime ministers — including Thaksin’s daughter Paetongtarn — removed by the courts.

Thaksin is currently in prison, with a parole hearing scheduled for May, around the time a new government must be formed.

“Thaksin remains a master of the ‘deal,’” said Prinya, the scholar at Thammasat University. And given Thaksin’s legal troubles and the pending cases against his daughter, the politician “is heavily incentivised to maintain a partnership with the conservative establishment,” Prinya added.

Economic strain

Whoever wins on Sunday will inherit a country in economic distress.

Tariffs have hurt exporters, growth has slowed to less than 2 percent, and tourist arrivals have declined.

“This may be a last chance to repair Thailand’s once-Teflon economy,” said Pavida Pananond, a professor of international business at Thammasat University, referring to the country’s historical resilience. But to bounce back, political stability would be essential, she stressed.

“Respecting the results and avoiding political manoeuvring that derails democratic processes is essential to restore economic confidence,” she added.

Back on the campaign trail, Rukchanok urged Thais not to give up.

“The moment you stop sending your signal by voting, that is when the 1 percent who hold this country’s resources will decide for you,” she said. “People may look at politics and see something ‘dirty’ — full of bluffing, mudslinging and endless arguing. But your life can only change if politics changes.”

She paused, then added: “We still have faith in the people.”

Hello and happy Thursday. I’m Times columnist Anita Chabria, filling in for Washington bureau chief Michael Wilner. Today we are talking about circling the drain, and whether its possible to escape the flush after the swirl has started.

Yes, I’m talking about President Trump’s latest latest grab at the levers of power, and whether it will pull us all down. Trump floated the existentially disturbing idea recently that the federal government should “take over” elections.

“The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting,” Trump said Monday on a podcast, making no attempt to keep election integrity nonpartisan.

This came shortly after the federal government raided a Georgia election office, still doggedly pursuing the very fake conspiracy that the 2020 vote was rigged against Trump. Lurking in the background of photos of that abuse of power was Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, a longtime peddler of conspiracy theories including that Ukraine housed secret U.S. biolabs.

It’s not just possible but likely that Gabbard will find “evidence” of fraud in Georgia because she has been claiming election interference since at least 2016 and reality has seemingly never been an impediment to her beliefs.

So some sort of report or “proof” probably will appear in coming months that Trump was right all along and that Democrats have tricked us all by stealing votes across the country.

That will be the basis for Trump to demand Congress “secure” the midterm election, and we all know how good they are at standing up to him.

But before we go there, let’s do a quick refresher on how Democrats supposedly steal elections, because that’s at the heart of what comes next.

It’s the immigrants, stupid

Trump (drawing from preexisting conspiracy theories promoted by many folks he has now placed in powerful positions) blames undocumented immigrants for his loss in 2020.

Under a long-running conservative election fraud hoax, Democrats allegedly made some sort of secret deal to allow Black and brown immigrants to illegally enter the country, if they would then promise to illegally vote en masse for Democrats.

“If we don’t get them out, Republicans will never win another election,” Trump said on that same podcast. “These people were brought to our country to vote and they vote illegally, and it is amazing that the Republicans are not tougher on it.”

This narrative has been proven false literally dozens if not hundreds of times in courts across the country, and by the rational minds of those who understand how impossible it would be for a conspiracy of this magnitude and complexity to go undetected — much less actually work.

Long before Harmeet Dhillon, the San Francisco Bay Area lawyer now demanding voter data as head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, used her official power to pursue this false conspiracy, she spent years upon years filing lawsuits and doing media appearances making the same claims.

And time and again, she and others were swatted down by courts (and common sense and evidence) because illegal immigrants working in collusion with Democrats to steal the vote is not a real thing.

But now election deniers are in power, and the gravitational pull away from truth is accelerating. Conspiracy is reality as we get closer to the ballot box.

ICE them out

And if immigrants indeed are stealing elections in between raping our women and eating cats and dogs, there is an answer: ICE.

Who better to secure ballot boxes than a masked, terrifyingly unaccountable armed federal force of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency that maybe answers only to Corey Lewandowski (the shadowy political operative always at Kristi Noem’s side) and Stephen Miller?

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that Kavanaugh stops — basically stopping folks for living while brown or Black — are legal, these agents have probable cause galore. Add to that a new, legally unfounded directive that they can detain folks at will, without a warrant, and you have the perfect force to suppress an election.

Imagine if on election day, ICE roams the street in Democratic-leaning, nonwhite neighborhoods, stopping and even detaining folks as they go to polls. Demanding papers, dragging away dissenters.

“Your damn right,” Trump hanger-oner Steve Bannon said recently, “We’re going to have ICE surround the polls come November. We’re not going to sit here and allow you to steal the country again. And you can whine and cry and throw your toys out of the pram all you want, but we will never again allow an election to be stolen.”

Would you go to the polls in that scenario? Would you allow your 18-year-old to go or your elderly parent? I’d think twice, even as crucial as this vote is.

And here’s a bit of outrage you can aim at Democrats: Congressional leadership considered including a ban on ICE at polling places as part of their proposed deal to keep government funded — but didn’t. Once again, for those in the back, Democrats could have tried to stop this, but chose not to.

But wait! That’s not all!

Why can’t we just mail in our ballots, you ask. Well, that would be because changes by Trump to the U.S. Postal Service, and how ballots may be counted, are going to make it harder to ensure that mail-in ballots are received and counted as they traditionally have been handled. So mailing your ballot may work out fine, or may not.

And there you have it, that’s how a free and fair democracy spins into the vortex of authoritarianism, where elections are held, ballots are counted, but reality is lost.

You are antigravity

But folks, we are not there yet. Today is not that day!

There are things you can do, aside from peacefully protesting. People can start to make sure that their identification is in order (as Orwellian as that sounds) and help others to do so as well.

It’s likely that in some places at least, voter identification laws will make it harder to cast a ballot, and people will need to start getting birth certificates, Social Security cards or other paperwork now in order to comply with those rules. Ask who in your community needs that kind of help and how you can provide it.

People are going to need ways to vote in person and support doing it. If you are an employer, would you consider giving folks time off to vote, since poll lines may be long? Would you sign up to help those without transportation get to polls? Would you help with voter registration drives to get people signed up to vote?

And you can be certain that election conspiracy believers will be observing the vote, as they always do. Can you train now to be a responsible and fair poll watcher, to ensure there is balance and fairness in these observations?

The one thing we can’t do is believe Trump is unstoppable, that the point of no return has already passed, and democracy is flowing out the sewer pipes into the sea. In fact, we have 271 days to reverse this.

It will take mass participation on multiple levels — but it can be done.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Supreme Court, with no dissents, rejects GOP challenge to California’s new election map
The deep dive: Fulton County in Georgia Challenges the F.B.I.’s Seizure of 2020 Ballots
The L.A. Times Special: California doctor sent abortion pills to Texas woman. Under a new law, her boyfriend is suing

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

P.S. Jeff Bezos Wednesday gutted his newspaper, the Washington Post. Its motto is “Democracy dies in darkness,” but also, democracy dies in layoffs by billionaires who can afford to send their wives into space for fun, but don’t want to pay for journalism that criticizes a dear leader.

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a California redistricting measure meant to net the Democratic Party more congressional seats, rejecting a challenge from the state Republican Party.

There was no dissent in Wednesday’s decision, and the conservative-majority court did not offer any explanation for its decision.

Instead, its order was comprised of a single sentence, stating that the Republican application “is denied”.

Previously, in December, the Supreme Court had allowed a similar redistricting measure, designed to benefit Republicans in Texas, to move forward.

Democratic officials in California have applauded Wednesday’s decision as fair, given that Republican President Donald Trump has led a nationwide push to redraw congressional districts in his party’s favour.

“Donald Trump said he was ‘entitled’ to five more Congressional seats in Texas,” California Governor Gavin Newsom said in a written statement.

“He started this redistricting war. He lost, and he’ll lose again in November.”

California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta echoed Newsom’s remarks, blaming Trump for launching a kind of redistricting arms race that threatened to disenfranchise Democratic voters.

“The US Supreme Court’s decision is good news not only for Californians, but for our democracy,” Bonta said in the statement.

The Supreme Court’s decision marks a win for Democratic efforts to counter the Trump-led redistricting efforts, which began last year in Texas.

In June last year, reports emerged that Trump had personally called Texas state politicians to redraw their congressional districts to give Republicans a greater advantage in Democrat-held areas.

Each congressional district elects one person to the US House of Representatives, which has a narrow Republican majority. Out of 435 seats, 218 are held by Republicans, and 214 by Democrats.

Texas, a Republican stronghold, proceeded to approve a newly revamped congressional map in August, overcoming a walkout by Democratic legislators.

That, in turn, prompted Newsom to launch a ballot initiative in California to counteract the Texas effort.

Just as the new Texas congressional map was designed to increase Republican seats by five, the California ballot initiative, known as Proposition 50, was also positioned to increase Democratic representation by five.

Voters in California passed the initiative overwhelmingly in a November special election, temporarily suspending the work of an independent redistricting commission that had previously drawn the state’s congressional maps.

Newsom, a possible 2028 presidential contender, framed Proposition 50 as a means of fighting “fire with fire”.

The new map approved under Proposition 50, however, will only be in place through the 2030 election, and Newsom has pledged to repeal it, should Republicans in Texas do the same with their new map.

The push to redistrict for partisan gain — a process known as gerrymandering — has long faced bipartisan pushback as an attack on democratic values.

Normally, redistricting happens every 10 years, after a new census is taken, to reflect population changes.

But this mid-decade redistricting battle comes before the pivotal 2026 midterm elections, which are slated to be a referendum on Trump’s second term as president. Trump has already expressed fear that he might be impeached, should Congress switch to Democratic control.

Partisan gerrymandering is not necessarily illegal, unless it purposefully disenfranchises voters on the basis of their race. That, in turn, is seen as a violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, an important piece of civil rights legislation from 1965.

In response to the passage of Proposition 50, Republicans in California sued Newsom and other state officials in an effort to overturn the new congressional map.

They argued the new map was created “specifically to favor Hispanic voters” and would dilute the representation of Republican voters in the state.

The Trump administration joined the lawsuit on November 13, backing the state Republicans.

But Bonta, the California attorney general, argued the redistricting process was legal. In court filings, he also maintained that Trump’s backing of the lawsuit was driven by self-interest.

“The obvious reason that the Republican Party is a plaintiff here, and the reason that the current federal administration intervened to challenge California’s new map while supporting Texas’s defense of its new map, is that Republicans want to retain their House majority for the remainder of President Trump’s term,” his court filing said.

Bonto also called on the Supreme Court not to “step into the political fray, granting one political party a sizeable advantage” by overturning Proposition 50.

The victory for California Democrats on Wednesday comes as redistricting fights continue across the country.

Already, states like North Carolina, Ohio and Missouri have adopted new congressional maps to favour Republicans. There has been pushback, though.

In December, Indiana’s Republican-led legislature voted down a partisan redistricting measure, despite pressure from Trump to pass it.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Monday that the federal government should “nationalize” elections, repeating — without evidence — his long-running claim that U.S. elections are beset by widespread fraud.

Speaking on a podcast hosted by former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino, Trump said Republicans should “take over the voting in at least 15 places,” alleging that voting irregularities in what he called “crooked states” are hurting the GOP.

“The Republican ought to nationalize the voting,” Trump said.

The proposal would clash with the Constitution’s long-standing framework that grants states primary authority over election administration, and underscored Trump’s continued efforts to upend voting rules ahead of this year’s midterm elections.

Trump, for example, lamented that Republicans have not been “tougher” on the issue, again asserting without evidence that he lost the 2020 election because undocumented immigrants voted illegally for Democrats.

“If we don’t get them out, Republicans will never win another election,” Trump said. “These people were brought to our country to vote and they vote illegally, and it is amazing that the Republicans are not tougher on it.”

In his remarks, the president suggested that “some interesting things” may come out of Georgia in the near future. Trump did not divulge more details, but was probably teasing what may come after the FBI served a search warrant at the election headquarters of Fulton County, Ga.

Days after FBI agents descended on the election center, the New York Times reported that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was with agents at the scene when she called Trump on her cellphone. Trump thanked them for their work, according to the report, an unusual interaction between the president and investigators tied to a politically sensitive inquiry.

In the days leading up to the Georgia search, Trump suggested in a speech during the World Economic Summit in Davos, Switzerland, that criminal charges were imminent in connection to what he called a “rigged” 2020 election.

Georgia has been central to Trump’s 2020 claims. That’s where Trump called Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on January 2021, asking him to “find” 11,780 votes to overturn the state’s results. Raffensperger refused, affirming that a series of reviews confirmed that Democrat Joe Biden had won the state.

Since returning to office a year ago, Trump has continued to aggressively pushed changes to election rules.

He signed an executive order in March to require proof of U.S. citizenship on election forms, but months later a federal judge barred the Trump administration from doing so, saying the order violated the separation of powers.

“Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the States and to Congress, this Court holds that the President lacks the authority to direct such changes,” Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in October.

In Congress, several Republican lawmakers have backed legislation to require people provide proof of citizenship before they register to vote.

Some conservatives are using the elections bill as bargaining chip amid negotiations over a spending package that would end a partial government shutdown that began early Saturday.

“ONLY AMERICAN CITIZENS SHOULD BE VOTING IN AMERICAN ELECTIONS. This is common sense not rocket science,” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) wrote on X on Monday as negotiations were continuing.

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

Right-wing candidate from the governing PPSO leads presidential race with 53.01 percent of the vote, early results show.

The right-wing law-and-order candidate, Laura Fernandez, has taken a commanding lead in Costa Rica’s presidential election, according to early results.

With ballots from 31 percent of polling stations counted late on Sunday, Fernandez, of the governing Sovereign People Party (PPSO), had 53.01 percent of the vote, the results showed.

Alvaro Ramos of the centre-left National Liberation Party ‍was in second place ⁠with 30.05 percent, while former First Lady Claudia Dobles was in third place with 3.9 percent.

Fernandez ‌needs at ‌least 40 percent to win the election outright and avoid ‌a run-off on April 5.

The 39-year-old politician is the handpicked successor of incumbent President Rodrigo Chaves, and campaigned on continuing his tough security policies.

The historically peaceful Central American nation’s crime surge in recent years could be a deciding factor for many voters. Some fault Chaves’s presidency for failing to bring the rates down, but many see his confrontational style as the best chance for Costa Rica to tame the violence.

Fernandez was previously Chaves’s minister of national planning and economic policy and, more recently, his minister of the presidency.

Costa Ricans also voted for the 57-seat National Assembly. Chaves’s party is expected to make gains, but perhaps not achieve the supermajority he and Fernandez have called for, which would allow their party to choose Supreme Court magistrates, for example.

Twenty contenders were seeking the presidency, but no candidate other than Fernandez and Ramos reached 5 percent in the preliminary and partial results.

Laura Fernandez, President Rodrigo Chaves’s protege and former chief of staff, is a frontrunner and could avoid an April 5 run-off.

Polls have opened in the Costa Rica general election as the ‍centre-right populist government seeks to extend its mandate and secure control of the Legislative Assembly at a time when drug-fuelled violence has gripped the country.

Voting stations opened at 6am local time (12:00 GMT) on Sunday and will remain open until 6pm (24:00 GMT), with early trends likely within hours.

Laura Fernandez, President Rodrigo Chaves’s protege and former chief of staff, is leading in the polls ⁠with more than 40 percent, enough to win outright and avoid an April 5 run-off. ​She has pledged to continue Chaves’s tough security policies and anti-establishment message.

Her closest ‍rivals in the 20-candidate field are Alvaro Ramos, a centrist economist representing Costa Rica’s oldest political party, and Claudia Dobles, an architect representing a progressive coalition and a former first lady whose husband, Carlos Alvarado, ‍served as president ⁠from 2018 to 2022.

Both are polling in the single digits but are seen as the two most likely to compete in a possible run-off if Fernandez falls short of 40 percent.

Fernandez has also urged voters to hand her 40 seats in the country’s 57-seat Legislative Assembly, a supermajority that would allow her to pursue constitutional reforms. The current government holds just eight seats and has blamed ​congressional gridlock for blocking its agenda.

Polls show about a ‌quarter of the 3.7 million voters remain undecided, with the largest group being between the ages of 18 and 34 and from the coastal provinces of Guanacaste, Puntarenas and Limon.

“People are tired of promises from all the governments, including ‌this one, even though the government has said things that are true, like needing stronger laws to restore order,” said Yheison ‌Ugarte, a 26-year-old deliveryman from downtown Limon, a Caribbean ⁠port city that has been the hardest hit by drug violence.

Despite homicides surging to an all-time high during his term and multiple corruption investigations, Chaves remains deeply popular, with a 58 percent approval rating, according to the University of Costa ‌Rica’s CIEP polling.

While consecutive re-election is not allowed in Costa Rica, Fernandez has pledged to include Chaves in her government and positioned herself as the continuity of his mandate.

Ousted premier says the exclusion of her Awami League party “deepens resentment” on Muhammad Yunus’s interim government.

Bangladesh’s toppled leader Sheikh Hasina has denounced her country’s election next month after her party was barred from participating in the polls, raising fears of wider political division and possible unrest.

In a message published by The Associated Press news agency on Thursday, Hasina said “a government born of exclusion cannot unite a divided nation.”

Hasina, who was sentenced to death in absentia for her crackdown on a student uprising in 2024 that killed hundreds of people and led to the fall of her 15-year government, has been sharpening her critique of the interim government of Nobel Peace winner Muhammad Yunus in recent days, as the election that will shape the nation’s next chapter looms.

“Each time political participation is denied to a significant portion of the population, it deepens resentment, delegitimises institutions and creates the conditions for future instability,” the former leader, who is living in exile in India, warned in her email to the AP.

She also claimed that the current Bangladesh government deliberately disenfranchised millions of her supporters by excluding her party – the former governing Awami League – from the election.

More than 127 million people in Bangladesh are eligible to vote in the February 12 election, widely seen as the country’s most consequential in decades and the first since Hasina’s removal from power after the mass uprising.

Yunus’s government is overseeing the process, with voters also weighing a proposed constitutional referendum on sweeping political reforms.

Campaigning started last week, with rallies in the capital, Dhaka, and elsewhere.

Yunus returned to Bangladesh and took over three days after Hasina fled to India on August 5, 2024, following weeks of violent unrest.

He has promised a free and fair election, but critics question whether the process will meet democratic standards and whether it will be genuinely inclusive after the ban on Hasina’s Awami League.

There are also concerns over security and uncertainty surrounding the referendum, which could bring about major changes to the constitution.

Yunus’s office said in a statement to the AP that security forces will ensure an orderly election and will not allow anyone to influence the outcome through coercion or violence. International observers and human rights groups have been invited to monitor the process, the statement added.

Tarique Rahman, the son of former prime minister and Hasina rival, Khaleda Zia, returned to Bangladesh after his mother’s death in December.

Rahman, the acting chairman of Khaleda’s Bangladesh Nationalist Party, is a strong candidate to win the forthcoming election.

On Friday, Hasina made her first public speech since her ouster, telling a packed press club in Delhi that Bangladesh “will never experience free and fair elections” under Yunus’s watch.

Her remarks on Friday were broadcast online and streamed live to more than 100,000 of her supporters.

The statement was criticised by Bangladesh’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which issued a statement saying it was “surprised” and “shocked” that India had allowed her to make a public address.

Bangladesh has been asking India to extradite Hasina, but New Delhi has yet to comment on the request.

India’s past support for Hasina has frayed relations between the South Asian neighbours since her overthrow.

In Dhaka’s political chatter, one word often keeps resurfacing when people debate who really holds the reins of the country: “Kochukhet”.

The neighbourhood that houses key military installations has, in recent public discussions, become shorthand for the cantonment’s influence over civilian matters, including politics.

Bangladesh is weeks away from a national election on February 12, the first since the 2024 uprising that ended then Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s long rule and ushered in an interim administration led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus.

The army is not vying for electoral power. But it has become central to the voting climate as the most visible guarantor of public order, with the police still weakened in morale and capacity after the upheaval of 2024, and with the country still reckoning with a “security apparatus” that watchdogs and official inquiries say was used to shape political outcomes under Hasina.

For nearly a year and a half now, soldiers have policed the streets of Bangladesh, operating under an order that grants them magisterial powers in support of law and order. On election duty, the deployment will scale up further: Officials have said as many as 100,000 troops are expected nationwide, and proposed changes to election rules would formally list the armed forces among the poll’s “law-enforcing agencies”.

Bangladesh, a nation of more than 170 million wedged between India and Myanmar, has repeatedly seen political transitions hijacked by coups, counter-coups and military rule, a past that still shapes how Bangladeshis read the present.  Analysts say that the army today is not positioned for an overt takeover, but it remains a decisive power centre: an institution embedded across the state, able to narrow civilian choices through its security role, intelligence networks and footprint inside government.

The military’s role now

Thomas Kean, the International Crisis Group’s senior consultant on Bangladesh and Myanmar, said the army has been “backstopping the interim government” not only politically but also “through day-to-day security amid police weakness”.

He said the institution is eager to see a transition to an elected government so the country returns to a firmer constitutional footing and so troops can “return to their barracks”.

“There are different factions and views within the army, but overall I would say that the army wants to see the election take place as smoothly as possible,” Kean told Al Jazeera.

Kean argued that if the army chief, General Waker-uz-Zaman, and the military “had wanted to take power, they could have done so when the political order collapsed on August 5”, the day Hasina fled to India amid a popular student-led revolt. But the military chose not to, he said, in part because it had learned from the fallout of past experiments with its direct political control.

Asif Shahan, a political analyst and professor at Dhaka University, said the military was aware that a takeover would have also jeopardised key interests, including Bangladesh’s United Nations peacekeeping deployments, which carry both financial benefits and reputational weight for the armed forces. Bangladesh has for decades been one of the biggest suppliers to UN peacekeeping missions, and receives between $100m and $500m a year in payouts and equipment reimbursements for these services.

But Shahan argues that the military remains “an important political actor”. Today, he said, its influence is “less about overt intervention than the institutional weight it carries through the security and intelligence apparatus”.

He also pointed to what he called the army’s “corporate” footprint. That footprint spans involvement in major state infrastructure projects, the military’s own business conglomerate, and the presence of serving and retired officers across commercial and state bodies.

Shahan said the last Hasina government “gave them a share of the pie”, leaving “a kind of culture of corruption … ingrained”. He suggested that this could translate into informal pressure on whoever governs next to do the same, and anxieties inside the force over whether “the facilities and privileges” it has accumulated will shrink.

On the election itself, Shahan too said that the possibility of the army trying to gain overt control was “very low” unless there is such a major law and order breakdown that there is public demand for the army to step in as the “only source of stability”,

Others who track the military closely agreed. Rajib Hossain, a former army officer and author of the best-selling book Commando, said he “strongly believes” the army will avoid partisan involvement for its own sake. “The army will play a neutral role during this election,” he said. “What we’ve observed on the ground over the past year and a half, there is no record of the army acting in a partisan way.”

But, he added, pressure on the institution has been intense since 2024. “Internally, there’s an understanding that if the army fails to act neutrally, it could lose even the public credibility it still has,” he said.

Mustafa Kamal Rusho, a retired brigadier general at the Osmani Centre for Peace and Security Studies, also told Al Jazeera that the military does not have “any clear intent” to influence politics, though “it still remains a critical power base”.

That leverage was clearest during the 2024 uprising, Rusho said, when Bangladesh’s political crisis reached a point that many Bangladeshis and international watchdogs viewed the military’s posture as decisive. “If the military did not take the stand that it took, then there would have been more bloodshed,” he said.

With protests escalating, the military refused to fully enforce Hasina’s curfew orders and decided troops would not fire on civilians. It enabled Hasina to flee to India on an air force plane, and the army chief then announced an interim government would be formed.

In an Al Jazeera documentary on the uprising last year, Waker-uz-Zaman, who is related to Hasina and was appointed less than two months before her collapse, also stressed that his forces would not turn their guns on civilians. “We don’t shoot at civilians. It’s not in our culture … So we did not intervene,” he said.

In the same interview, he added: “We believe that the military should not engage in politics … It’s not our cup of tea.”

When the military ruled

That hasn’t always been the military’s position.

After the 1975 assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Bangladesh’s founding leader and then-president, by a group of military officers, the country entered a period marked by coups, counter-coups and military rule upheavals that reshaped the state and produced political forces that still dominate elections.

One of them was the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), founded by army general-turned-ruler Ziaur Rahman, who emerged as the country’s most powerful figure in the late 1970s before moving into civilian politics. Rahman was assassinated in 1981 in a failed coup attempt by another group of military officers. The BNP remains a key contender in the February 12 vote, now led by Rahman’s son, Tarique Rahman, who has returned to front-line politics after a long exile.

In 1982, then army chief Hussain Muhammad Ershad seized power and ruled for much of the 1980s. Writer and political historian Mohiuddin Ahmed has described Ershad’s takeover as coming only months after he publicly argued that “the army should be brought in to help run the country”.

Eventually, a pro-democracy movement led by Zia’s wife, Khaleda Zia, and Hasina, also Mujibur Rahman’s daughter, forced him from office. The BNP won a landmark election, and in 1991, Khaleda became the country’s first female prime minister.

Since then, Rusho said, the military’s influence “became more indirect”, though Bangladesh still saw an abortive May 1996 showdown when the then army chief, Lieutenant General Abu Saleh Mohammad Nasim, defied presidential orders, and troops loyal to him moved towards Dhaka. Nasim was arrested and removed from office.

A decade later, in 2007, the military in effect “fully backed” a caretaker government that was formed to replace Khaleda’s second administration, which had ruled between 2001 and 2006. That caretaker government was installed in January 2007 after a breakdown in the election process and escalating political violence. The International Crisis Group described the caretaker administration as “headed by technocrats but controlled by the military”, while then-army chief Moeen U Ahmed argued the political climate “was deteriorating very rapidly” and that the military’s intervention had “quickly ended” street violence.

It was only after 2009, when Hasina came back to power – her Awami League had first ruled between 1996 and 2001 – that the military became “subordinate to the civilian regime”, Rusho said.

Blurred lines

But even though the military today insists that it does not want power, it has often drifted into the political terrain.

A major moment arrived just weeks after Hasina’s ouster, in September 2024, when General Zaman told the Reuters news agency he would back Yunus’s interim government “come what may”, while also floating a timeline for elections within 18 months. The interview, which critics described as something unprecedented for a serving army chief, placed the military close to the country’s central political debate.

Hossain, the former army officer and author, criticised the public nature of the intervention. “If he [Zaman] had discussed this after sitting with all the stakeholders … the interim [administration], political parties, protest leaders … and then gone to the media, that would be acceptable,” he said. “But here, he declared it unilaterally and blindsided the government from his position of power. He had no authority to do that.”

“You may say this is an extraordinary, transitional time and the military has a role to play,” Hossain added. “But then, why do we have an administration at all?”

Shahan, the Dhaka University professor, said Zaman “came very close” to crossing the line and explained it as a product of military institutional culture after August 5. “Military organisations … like to follow standing operating procedures, order, stability,” he said. But August 5, he added, was “a political rupture” that forced the army and the nation into uncertainty: about the interim government’s longevity, legitimacy and how it would deal with the military.

Those anxieties, Shahan said, likely pushed Zaman to speak. In principle, he said, it is reasonable for the army chief to say elections are needed for stability. But “when he set a specific timeline – within 18 months – that is beyond his role”, Shahan said. “It then appears as if he is dictating.”

Shahan added that the problem becomes sharper when that kind of specificity appears to respond to a party demand; he was referring to a time when only the Bangladesh Nationalist Party was repeatedly pushing for a vote timetable.

Eight months later, in May 2025, Zaman again weighed in, telling a high-level military gathering, according to local media reports, that his position had not changed and that the next national vote should be held by December 2025. After that, Faiz Ahmad Taiyeb, a special adviser to Yunus, wrote on Facebook that “the army can’t meddle in politics” and argued that the military chief had failed to maintain “jurisdictional correctness” by prescribing an election deadline.

Around the same period, rumours emerged suggesting that Yunus had considered resigning amid political discord.

The shadow Hasina left

Another reason that analysts say the military’s role is being debated so intensely now is because of Bangladesh’s recent wounds.

During Hasina’s 15-year rule, human rights organisations argued Bangladesh’s security apparatus was often used for political control. Human Rights Watch has described enforced disappearances as a “hallmark” of Hasina’s rule since 2009.

When the United States sanctioned the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) in 2021 over allegations of extrajudicial killings, the US Department of the Treasury said, “These incidents target opposition party members, journalists, and human rights activists.” Critics argue that security institutions became central to governance, and questions about how that machinery was used are now part of the post-Hasina political settlement.

Hossain, the former officer, said the Hasina-era legacy still echoes inside the top brass. “If you look at the leadership, the general, five lieutenant generals, and some major generals and brigadier generals, a lot of them were part of Hasina’s apparatus,” he said, “aside from a handful of professional officers”.

A report by Bangladesh’s Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances says disappearances were used as a “tool for political repression” and that the practice “reached alarming levels during key political flashpoints”, including in the run-up to elections in 2014, 2018 and 2024. The commission said it verified 1,569 cases of enforced disappearance.

In cases where political affiliation could be confirmed, the Jamaat-e-Islami and its student wing accounted for about 75 percent of victims, while the BNP and its affiliated groups accounted for about 22 percent. Among those “still missing or dead”, the BNP and its allies accounted for about 68 percent, while the Jamaat and its affiliates accounted for about 22 percent, the report said.

The commission also noted that the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI), the military-run intelligence agency, had been “accused of manipulating domestic politics and interfering in the 2014 parliamentary elections”, and argued that perceived alignment with the Awami League compromised its neutrality.

Several senior military officers, including 15 in service, are now facing trial in a civilian tribunal on charges of enforced disappearances, murders and custodial tortures.

The proceedings have become a delicate issue in civil-military relations, as cases against serving officers in civilian courts are rare in Bangladesh’s history.

Former army chief Iqbal Karim Bhuiyan wrote on Facebook that local media had reported disagreements over the “trial process” for officers accused of crimes against humanity and that those disagreements had created what he described as a “chasm” between the interim government and the army’s top leadership.

Hossain, the former officer, however, said he disagreed. “These trials are not defaming the army,” Hossain said. “Rather, they are a kind of redemption for the institution to recover from the stigma created by the crimes of some self-serving officers.”

He argued that accountability could motivate younger officers and reduce the risk of the military being politically exploited again. Rusho, the retired brigadier general, also argued that politicisation under Hasina was driven less by formal doctrine than by executive control over careers.

“Promotions, important postings, placements … they were influenced considerably by the executive branch,” he said. “When you influence postings, some people’s loyalty often gets diverted to political masters, [and] it affects … professionalism and capability.”

Kean of the International Crisis Group said the real test for Bangladesh now would be whether it can stop the security state from being reabsorbed into partisan politics.

“The military is going to remain a powerful institution in Bangladesh, with a level of influence in domestic politics,” he said. “One hopes that the lesson of the past 18 months is that the military is better to support civilian administrations rather than be in power directly – that it can be a stabilising force, and one that is ultimately committed to democracy and civilian leadership.”

But, he added, the onus to do that isn’t only on the generals. Civilian politicians, too, needed to resist the temptation to misuse the military. That alone, he suggested, would help Bangladesh keep the army in the barracks and politicians accountable to the people, not to men in khakis.

Although the two dominant political parties–Republican and Democratic–get most of the attention and their candidates win most offices, there are four other ballot-qualified parties in California: American Independent, Green, Libertarian, and Peace and Freedom. Buoyed by a surge in voter disaffection and disgust with the political status quo, the minor parties are fielding candidates in a number of major California races. Yet victory is likely to remain elusive: The combined voter registration of the four parties totals only 450,000. Most often, these parties enter races not so much to win as to force the discussion of certain issues that they feel might otherwise be ignored. Here is a look at the parties and the issues they stand for. All but the Green Party have entered candidates in the U.S. Senate races, and those candidates are also listed here. Candidates in other races are listed on Pages 6, 7 and 8.

AMERICAN INDEPENDENT:

Origins: Supporters of former Alabama Gov. George C. Wallace’s 1968 presidential bid formed this party. Today, it disavows the racism once associated with Wallace but promotes fiscal conservatism and a generally right-wing agenda. The party is loosely Loosely affiliated with the U.S. Taxpayers Party elsewhere in the nation. But it is not related, as some mistakenly believe, to businessman Ross Perot’s independent presidential candidacy.

Membership: 217,197 registered voters (1.54% of state’s total registration).

Issues: The party wants to reduce government spending across the board, including cuts in the military budget. It would terminate all foreign aid. American Independent candidates want to eliminate the federal income tax and the Internal Revenue Service. They would repeal many environmental and other government regulations and impose term limits for elected officials. They advocate removing the federal role in schools. They favor the death penalty and would outlaw abortion.

U.S. Senate candidates: Marketing consultant Paul Meeuwenberg for the two-year seat, Castroville businessman Jerome McCready for the six-year seat.

GREEN:

Origins: The newest of California’s alternative parties, the Greens were certified as an official party in January after a registration drive that targeted environmental rallies, anti-Gulf War marches and rock ‘n’ roll concerts. Members include environmentalists, feminists and peace activists, among others. Despite the party’s fledgling status, members have already won about a dozen nonpartisan local offices across the state. Sixteen Greens are running for seats in the Congress and the Legislature this fall , most of them in Southern California. Most members live in the San Francisco Bay Area The party is patterned after the European Green parties but there are no financial ties.

Membership: 95,116 registered voters (0.67% of total).

Issues: The Greens favor strong environmental protection, or “ecological wisdom.” The party would like to see deep defense cuts, with the “peace dividend” going to education and other domestic programs. The party favors abortion rights, nonviolence and community-based economics. It also advocates vegetarian meals in schools and jails.

U.S. Senate candidates: None.

PEACE AND FREEDOM:

Origins: The party grew out of the anti-war movement of the 1960s, first qualifying for the ballot in California in 1968. Party membership began to wane after the Vietnam War but it is making a small comeback as the party broadens its platform to include a variety of liberal and socialist issues. Still largely a California party.

Membership: 68,182 registered voters (0.48% of total).

Issues: The party promotes multiracial harmony and the righting of racial inequities as a prerequisite for bringing the national economy back to life. It advocates huge cuts in defense spending and the conversion of the nation’s defense industry to civilian business. The party also favors redistribution of the wealth, achieved through taxing the rich and raising the minimum wage.

U.S. Senate candidates: Gerald Horne, professor of history and chairman of the black studies department at UC Santa Barbara, running for the two-year seat. Genevieve Torres, a cancer researcher, is listed on the ballot as the party’s candidate for the six-year seat, but because of internal disputes, many in the party have distanced themselves from her campaign.

LIBERTARIAN:

Origins: On the ballot in all 50 states, the Libertarian Party was founded in 1971 in Colorado. It promotes a synthesis of social Darwinism, individualism and laissez-faire economics. The party is fielding 100 candidates in congressional and local races in California.

Membership: 66,994 registered voters (0.47% of total).

Issues: The Libertarian Party stands for a hands-off style of government and the defense of personal liberties. Libertarian candidates believe in putting a cap on federal spending, reducing defense spending and eliminating foreign aid. They would phase out federal subsidies to businesses and to state and local governments. They support a voucher system in schools and would eliminate the Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency and most government offices. Because they believe in limited government, Libertarian candidates advocate legalization of drugs, prostitution and gambling.

U.S. Senate candidates: Self-described entrepreneur and motivational speaker Richard Boddie for the two-year seat; computer programmer June Genis for the six-year term.

FBI searches Fulton County election office in Georgia over 2020 election concerns linked to Trump-Biden contest.

The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is executing a search warrant at a Fulton County election office in Georgia related to the 2020 United States election, an agency spokesperson said.

An FBI spokesperson said agents were “executing a court-authorised law enforcement action” at the county’s main election office in Union City, just south of Atlanta. The spokesperson declined to provide any further information, citing an ongoing matter.

FBI agents were spotted entering the Fulton County Election Hub and Operation Center, said Fox News, which first reported the search of a new facility that state officials opened in 2023.

The probe concerns the 2020 election, in which Republican Donald Trump, the current US president, lost to the former US president, Democrat Joe Biden, the official said.

The search comes as the FBI, under the leadership of Director Kash Patel, has moved quickly to pursue the political grievances of Trump, including by working with the Justice Department to investigate multiple perceived adversaries of the commander-in-chief.

The Justice Department had no immediate comment.

Find the votes

Trump has long insisted that the 2020 election was stolen even though judges across the country and his own attorney general said they found no evidence of widespread fraud that tipped the contest in Biden’s favour.

Representatives for Fulton County’s election office referred queries to the county’s external affairs office, which did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

The Democratic-leaning county, home to Atlanta, backed Biden by a wide margin in the 2020 election, helping him win the state and the presidency.

Trump unsuccessfully sought to overturn the result, pressuring the state’s top election official to “find” him enough votes to claim victory.

Earlier this month, Trump asked a state court for $6.2m in legal fees, saying he spent it fighting criminal charges of election interference filed by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

In August 2023, Willis obtained an indictment against Trump and 18 others, accusing them of participating in a wide-ranging scheme to illegally try to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

That case was dismissed in November after courts barred Willis and her office from pursuing it because of an “appearance of impropriety” stemming from a romantic relationship she had with a prosecutor she had appointed to lead the case.

UNION CITY, Ga. — FBI agents were executing a search warrant at the Fulton County elections office near Atlanta on Wednesday, an agency spokesperson confirmed.

An FBI spokesperson said agents were “executing a court authorized law enforcement action” at the county’s main election office in Union City, just south of Atlanta. The spokesperson declined to provide any further information, citing an ongoing matter.

The search comes as the FBI under the leadership of Director Kash Patel has moved quickly to pursue the political grievances of President Trump, including by working with the Justice Department to investigate multiple perceived adversaries of the Republican commander-in-chief.

The Justice Department had no immediate comment.

Trump has long insisted that the 2020 election was stolen even though judges across the country and his own attorney general said they found no evidence of widespread fault that tipped the contest in Democrat Joe Biden’s favor.

He has long made Georgia, one of the battleground states he lost in 2020, a central target for his complaints about the election and memorably pleaded with its then-secretary of state to “find” him enough votes to overturn the contest.

Last week, in reference to the 2020 election, he asserted that “people will soon be prosecuted for what they did.” It was not clear what in particular he was referring to.

Fulton County District Atty. Fani Willis in August 2023 obtained an indictment against Trump and 18 others, accusing them of participating in a wide-ranging scheme to illegally try to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. That case was dismissed in November after courts barred Willis and her office from pursuing it because of an “appearance of impropriety” stemming from a romantic relationship she had with a prosecutor she had appointed to lead the case.

Brumback writes for the Associated Press.

Whoever is nominated from the two Kurdish parties still needs the approval from the Shia and Sunni blocs in the parliament.

Iraq’s parliament has postponed the election for the country’s next president to allow for more consultations between the two Kurdish parties to agree on a candidate.

The Iraqi News Agency (INA) said the parliamentary vote scheduled for Tuesday was delayed at the request of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK).

Iraq follows a sectarian quota system, according to which the post of the prime minister goes to a Shia, the parliament’s speaker is a Sunni, and the largely ceremonial presidency goes to a Kurd.

Usually, in an agreement between the two main Kurdish parties, a PUK member holds the presidency. In contrast, the president and regional leader of the semi-autonomous Kurdish region are selected from the KDP.

However, in this instance, the KDP announced its own candidate, Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein, for the election.

Reporting from the capital, Baghdad, Al Jazeera’s Mahmoud Abdelwahed said whoever is nominated from the two Kurdish parties still needs the approval from the Shia and Sunni blocs in the parliament.

After the election, the new president will have 15 days to appoint a prime minister, who is widely expected to be the former leader, Nouri al-Maliki.

Al-Maliki, 75, has already served as Iraq’s prime minister for two terms from 2006 to 2014 before he quit under pressure from the United States. He is seen as being close to Iran.

On Saturday, the Coordination Framework, an alliance of Shia parties which holds a parliamentary majority, endorsed Maliki. The next day, the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned against a pro-Iranian government in Iraq.

An Iraqi source close to the Coordination Framework told the AFP news agency that Washington had conveyed to it that it “holds a negative view of previous governments led by former Prime Minister Maliki”.

In a letter, US representatives said that while the selection of the prime minister is an Iraqi decision, “the United States will make its own sovereign decisions regarding the next government in line with American interests”.

Another Iraqi source confirmed the letter, adding that the Shia alliance had still moved forward with its choice, confident that Maliki could allay Washington’s concerns.

Iraq has long been a proxy battleground between the US and Iran, with successive governments negotiating a delicate balance between the two foes.