DHAKA — The governments of the U.S. and U.K. have termed Bangladesh’s election “not free and fair” but said they would continue cooperation with Dhaka, casting some doubt on widespread assumptions that Western governments would take a tough stance over the South Asian country’s controversial polls.

Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her Awami League party secured a fourth straight term in power in Sunday’s voting. But it was not much of a contest: The main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party boycotted the election over Hasina’s refusal to step aside for a neutral administration to oversee it.

Besides the lack of serious competition, the campaign and election day were tarnished by violence, arrests of opposition leaders and activists, and allegations of manipulation at polling stations.

Within hours of the results, China, Russia and Bangladesh’s most influential neighbor India congratulated Hasina on her win. But reactions from Western countries, particularly the U.S., were closely watched. Before the polls, Washington imposed visa restrictions on those deemed to undermine a fair process, and many have speculated that the key buyer of Bangladesh’s garment industry might levy trade sanctions.

U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller issued a statement dated Monday saying that Washington “shares the view with other observers that these elections were not free or fair” and regrets that not all parties did not take part.

The statement acknowledged that the “Awami League party won a majority of seats” but expressed concern over “arrests of thousands of political opposition members” and the “reports of irregularities on the election day.”

Likewise, the U.K.’s Foreign Office “noted” the results of the election but stressed that the Bangladeshi people did not “have the fullest range of voting options.”

Britain also expressed concern about arrests and condemned “the acts of intimidation and violence that took place prior to and during the campaign period.”

“Such conduct has no place in political life,” the office said.

Nevertheless, both governments said they would continue to work with Bangladesh.

The U.S. said it is “committed to partnering with Bangladesh” to advance their shared vision “for a free and open Indo-Pacific” and to “support human rights and civil society,” and for deepening “people-to-people and economic ties.”

The U.K. statement said the two countries “share a deep and historic friendship” and that it encourages “all political parties to address their differences and find a common way forward in the interests of the people of Bangladesh,” which it will “continue to support.”

Within the ruling Awami League, at least, the statements were perceived as tacit acceptance.

“They criticize our electoral process without giving any specifications,” said Mohammad A. Arafat, an AL politician elected in a constituency in Dhaka. “But they say they would continue their cooperation with us, which basically means they have accepted the election results.”

Arafat also argued that the U.K. specifically condemned violence surrounding the election, which he claimed was mostly conducted by opposition members, not the ruling party.

Rumeen Farhana, international affairs secretary for the BNP, pushed back against the notion that the party was responsible for violence. “BNP was nowhere — not in the election, and not even on the field. It was an election between AL and their dummy candidates. You wouldn’t find such an absurd poll in anywhere in the world.”

Reacting to the Western statements, Farhana said the Bangladeshi people had found hope in previous U.S. moves to sanction a few ruthless individuals in the security forces and later impose visa restrictions on those who undermine free elections.

“But it is evident that the fascist regime cares little about the U.S. policies and they already renewed their illegal stay through a dummy pseudo election without voters’ participation,” she said, highlighting the election’s low turnout.

“It’s time the U.S. and the democracy-loving world comes out of empty rhetoric and takes some real actions that are effective to compel a regime change for fair votes,” she argued.

Supporters of an Islamist party in Bangladesh show red cards to the government as they join in a protest against the election in Dhaka on Jan. 9.   © Reuters

Analysts interpreted the statements in similar fashion to the Awami League, with some distinctions.

“It seems both the U.S. and U.K. have accepted the results of the Bangladesh election and will continue to cooperate with the new government,” said Munshi Faiz Ahmed, former director general of the Bangladesh Institute of International and Strategic Studies (BIISS), a state-sponsored think tank on policy and security.

Ahmed, however, pointed out that the U.S. mentioned deepening “people-to-people ties” instead of “government-to-government” ones.

“In diplomatic communication, it leaves the scope of ambiguity,” said Ahmed, also a former ambassador to China. “It can be interpreted by the opposition or anyone as [saying] that the U.S. might continue to support the people of Bangladesh but might remain cold in government communication or support.”

Dhaka-based political analyst Zahed Ur Rahman suggested the U.S. wants to keep its strategic options open, noting the reference to the Indo-Pacific.

Still, he said, the American and British statements share “a similar tone of denouncing the election’s fairness and credibility” while both countries “reiterated concerns about the repression of the opposition party leaders and activists.”

Meanwhile, the United Nations’ human rights chief Volker Turk on Monday called on Bangladesh’s government “to take steps to renew the country’s commitment to democracy and human rights” and voiced distress that the “environment for Sunday’s poll was marred by violence and repression of opposition candidates and supporters.”