Election  a method of choosing among candidates for some posts or offices in the government, legislature and corporate bodies, for example, by the vote of those enfranchised to cast an open or secret ballot. In all ancient communities, as most anthropological and historical studies indicate, the institution of election in some form or other was very common. The ancient Greek systems of governance were characterised by elections, which were held normally by lot. Many of the native American tribes used to elect their chiefs by throwing corns into marked pots. In ancient India, local chiefs were often elected. In the Mughal imperial system, leaders chosen by the local people ran local government. In a district, the government appointed the faujdar (district officer) and some other high officials and the rest were elected by people. For example, the village people chose the mukaddam or village chief in Bengal and also the patwari or rent collector. The pargana kazis (thana judicial officer) and thanadars (thana officers) were also appointed on the recommendation of the village mukaddams. The village panchayet seems to be the most glaring example of the elective character of local governance until 1793, when it was formally abolished by lord cornwallis. But panchayet as an informal institution continued to operate until the local government system was evolved in the 1870s and 1880s.

The rise of modern nation states and political parties seeking state power has eventually resulted in the transformation of the traditional mode of elections. Elections are now inseparable from the growth of democratic forms of government. It began with the birth of the parliamentary process in England in the 13th century, followed by gradual regularisation by acts prescribing the frequency of elections (eg, The Trinnial Act of 1694 and the Septennial Act of 1716), and by successive reform bills widening the franchise in the 19th century and by the adoption of the secret ballot in 1872, and finally by introducing adult franchise in 1928.

The election system in Bengal, however, did not evolve the same way. The colonial rulers subverted the traditional system of election by abolishing local government institutions like the village chief, panchayet, patwari, amin, munsef, thanadar and qazi All these institutions were traditionally operated through popular consent and co-operation. The elective institution of the western type was introduced in 1868 by enacting a municipal act (Act VI) providing for a municipal committee, two-thirds of whose members were elected and one-third nominated. Only the rate-payers of the municipalities were enfranchised to elect the members. The earliest Bengal municipalities to have elections were Serampore, Burdwan and Krishnanagar (1868). It was the Act III of 1884 that extended the elective system to all the important municipalities of Bengal, including Dhaka. Under the same Act the district committees and local boards were formed partly on the basis of election and partly by nomination.

The period following the introduction of a limited electoral system, in municipalities and rural areas, was marked by the extension of enfranchisement to rural areas. The electoral system was introduced at the level of legislative councils, both central and provincial, under the Government of India Act of 1909. The franchise and the elective bodies were further extended under the Government of India Act of 1919. From 1909 began elections on communal and occupational basis. Based on separate electorates, elections at local, municipal and national levels were held, though irregularly, from 1920 onward. The provincial election, held in 1937 under the Government of India Act of 1935, was marked by extensive franchise, though not universal till then. The election 1954 to the provincial legislature in East Bengal was the first to be held on the basis of universal franchise and last on the basis of separate electorates.

The people of Bengal showed an interest in elections from the time of its introduction. In fact, the election system was introduced in the municipality of Dhaka and in the district and rural boards in response to a popular demand spearheaded by an organisation called the Dhaka People's Association. Every extension of franchise granted subsequently was in response to public demand. But, in spite of people's interest in the representative system, the western type of election could never be transplanted successfully in Bengal, or for that matter, in India, for elections seem to have always been manipulated to serve the colonial, communal or other sectarian interests. Thus, in the interest of preserving colonial control, the government always tried to sway the elections in favour of the loyal elite classes, and the landholding class in particular. Both elected and nominated members on the committees and boards at municipal and local levels were predominantly landholders up to 1935. Even in the elections of 1937 they maintained their predominance.

The history of elections, has shown progressive political polarisation. Until 1920 candidates contested elections individually and independent of any party affiliation. Even in the elections of 1937, though held on party lines, independent candidates emerged as the largest group. Out of 250 seats, 81 were won by independent candidates (Muslim 43 and Hindu 39). Among the candidates nominated by parties, National Congress got 52 seats, muslim league 39, Krishak Praja Party 36, and the rest went to various sectarian groups. The election results show that the candidates were not yet sharply polarised politically. But the scene changed fundamentally in the following decade. In the elections to the provincial legislatures, held in 1946 under the Act of 1935, the candidates put up by the Muslim League and Congress routed the independents. Though about three hundred candidates contested the elections independently, only eight of them (6 Hindus and 2 Muslims) were returned successfully. The age of elections participated in by the independents seemed to have ended thus. In all subsequent elections the success of independent candidates became the exception rather than the norm.

Several factors such as the Hindu exodus after the partition of 1947, abolition of the zamindari system and the introduction of universal adult franchise in 1956 radically changed the election pattern. The candidates in the provincial elections of 1954 and in the district board elections were predominantly non-resident lawyers and much younger than in the past. The process of change accelerated in the 1960s and 1970s when the contesting candidates were apt to be professional politicians and solvent financially. Circumstances such as the repressive Ayub regime (1958-1969), the autonomy movement (1966-1971), the war of liberation, post-war political developments, including the formation of BAKSAL and assassination of the architect of the nation, sheikh mujibur rahman, and consequent political instability, absolutely upset the tradition of elections. Henceforth elections tended to become more and more an instrument for the legitimisation and formalisation of a regime than for the institutionalisation of democracy. A number of such general elections held in the decades following 1975 were either boycotted by large numbers or provoked agitation.

The elections of 1991 and 1996 were the products of popular movements. The post-liberation war situation and the two elections in the wake of massive agitation contributed much to the restoration of a normal election system. But there has been a price to pay. Elections haunted by the spectre of political unrest were associated with a new element, santrash or terrorism, a new feature in the history of elections. Santrash is marked not only in public elections but also in elections for party positions. This unique phenomenon has made free and fair elections very difficult. The major political parties maintain armed cadres whose job is to canvass for them by intimidation, capture polling centres and in certain circumstances run away with ballot boxes. As a result, the politicians, press and members of the public always take election result with a pinch of salt. Under such circumstances, the losing party is apt to dismiss election results as the result of manipulation and calls for fresh election, a demand which the party in power refuses to accept. [Sirajul Islam]