Finally, the Proportional Representation system will be introduced in Bangladesh, though only partially. If everything goes as planned, members of the proposed upper chamber of our parliament will be elected on this principle. It means a party will receive representation in the upper chamber in proportion to the share of the vote it receives in the parliamentary election. However, there remain some ifs in its implementation. To keep the discussion uncomplicated, these ifs can be set aside temporarily.  At the outset, it must be emphasized that upper chambers are more powerful in around 80% of countries that follow proportional representation. Under this context, it can be said that even 50% proportional representation will not be introduced in our country, at least temporarily.

Although a consensus has been reached on the introduction of proportional representation in the Upper House, unfortunately, there is still no clear conception about this system among a considerable number of our highly placed politicians. People are kept ignorant or misled due to their misconceptions or shallow knowledge. If we want to introduce the proportional representation system in our country, which I am in favor of, we must understand how it works and why it is better than the traditional direct election among candidates.

The direct election system we follow now was inherited from our British colonial rulers. India and Pakistan also got it from the British. The USA also practices it since it was a colony of the United Kingdom.

On the other hand, approximately 130 countries, worldwide, including Germany and France, follow the proportional representation system. Of the 43 European countries, 40 follow this system. Many of these countries have parliamentary forms of government. There, the president is directly elected by the people's vote. But members of parliament in most of those countries are elected on the basis of proportional representation. That means a political party gets representation based on the percentage of votes it receives in the election. If a party recieves 20% of votes, it will get approximately 20% of the seats in the parliament. But to maintain the stability of the government, a party must receive a minimum percentage of the vote to get any seats in parliament. It varies from 4% to 7%. In our country, there are quite a few political parties that can receive 1% to 3% of the vote in the election. Under proportional representation, they will receive 3 to 9 seats in our legislative assembly, since our National Assembly has 300 seats, excluding the seats reserved for women.  And there is a valid apprehension that with such a meager number of seats, they can make the major parties hostages to them and even topple the government. Many of us remember the frequent changes of governments in East Pakistan during the Pakistan period. Abu Hossain Sarkar lasted only for one day. We must take precautionary measures so that it does not happen when we introduce proportional representation in our country. The precondition of obtaining a minimum percentage of the vote can be a safeguard in this regard. We may consider that one party must receive 4% to 5% of the vote to gain representation in the National Assembly. 

The most significant problem with the present direct election system, which we now follow, is that a political party that receives 30% to 35% of the vote can win 65 to 75% of seats in parliament, which is both theoretically and practically possible. On the other hand, another political party that receives only 2 to 3% fewer votes may not get even 10% to 15% of the seats. And there is a more dangerous factor. The number of voters in different electoral districts is not equal. Hence, a political party might win more seats even if it receives fewer overall votes nationwide. Arithmetically, it is very much possible. 

To clarify the position, examples of the last two free and fair elections, held in 2001 and 2008, can be cited here. The elections of 2014, 2018, and 2024 have not been taken into account because they were considered unfair and farcical by almost all. In 2001, BNP received 41% of the votes cast nationwide. But they got about 200 of the 300 seats. They got 41% of the votes but around 65% of the seats. In that election, Awami League received almost 40 percent of the vote but won only in 100 constituencies, which is less than one-third of the total seats.  A completely different picture emerged in the following election, held in 2008. In that election, the Awami League received 48% of the vote (less than 50%) but won 230 seats, more than two-thirds of the total. The Awami League-led grand alliance received 57% of the votes. Based on this vote count, the coalition could have secured 170 seats. But under the direct election system, they captured 262 seats, more than three-fourths of the total. On the other hand, the BNP-led 4-party coalition received 38% of the total votes. Under the more judicious proportional representation system, they were supposed to get 115 seats. But under the direct election system, they actually got only 33 seats. Due to the grossly unfair election system, the Awami League-led 15-party grand alliance won in more than three-fourths of the constituencies, and that is why they could repeal the Caretaker Government system by changing the 13th amendment of the constitution. Later, they could validate it through the illegal verdict of the party-biased judge, Mr. Khairul Huque. It led to more than one decade of the fascistic reign of a one-person and a virtual one-party tyranny in Bangladesh. To get rid of this anti-people, oppressive rule, the people of Bangladesh had to undergo enormous sacrifices. Around 1500 people were brutally killed during the people's revolution or mass upsurges of 2024. During the illegal tenure of the fallen mafia ruler, Sheikh Hasina, not only did democracy vanish, but at the same time, the economy was ruined. The country became almost bankrupt. The development was mostly cosmetic. In the name of mega projects, oligarchs and members of syndicates close to the power circle were engaged in mega corruption. Money in foreign currency equivalent to more than two hundred thousand crores taka was transferred abroad. Bank owners like S. Alam and Nazrul Islam looted account holders' deposits. The liability of these looters is now on the shoulders of the present interim government. Had the Awami League not won more than three-fourths of the seats under the unfair direct election system, Bangladesh would not have sacrificed so much. If the proportional representation system is introduced in Bangladesh, there is no way a party that receives 35% of the vote will win 65% of parliamentary seats. The country will get rid of the imperious governance of the unjustified brute majority.

One thing must be mentioned here. The application method of proportional representation is not the same in all countries, though the basic principle is universal. I think the best method for Bangladesh is “Party List Proportional Representation,” which is being followed in around 30 countries, including Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Denmark.

Under this method or classification, a country is divided into some greater electoral units. In Bangladesh, there are 64 administrative districts, and initially each may be declared an electoral unit or district. Since Cities like Dhaka, Chittagong, Khulna, and Rajshahi have huge populations, they can be divided into further electoral districts. Dhaka may be divided into 15 electoral districts, Chittagong into eight districts, and so on. The whole country can be demarcated into 100 districts or units. At present, the National Assembly of Bangladesh consists of 300 members, excluding the seats reserved for women. Accordingly, three members can be elected from each electoral unit. If the total number of seats is increased to 500, five members can be elected from each unit.

Some people believe that under the proportional representation system, political parties participate in the election without providing the names of their candidates. If they win a seat, they select him or her at their discretion. This notion is not correct. In Sweden, if a particular electoral district has 15 parliamentary seats, the concerned parties submit a list of candidates with serial numbers.  All parties use their own ballot papers, in separate colors (if possible), in consultation with the election authority. Usually, they provide more names in the ballot papers than the number of seats fixed for the districts. If a seat is vacated for any reason, it can be filled by additional candidates without holding a by-election. So, it is not correct that voters cast their votes without knowing the names of the candidates of political parties. A political party places its candidates in serial order, considering their political background, popularity, and other qualifications. Usually, if a party gets seven seats in a particular electoral district, the first seven candidates in the serial order will be selected as members of the parliament from that district. But it may be a fact that a candidate whose name appears at the bottom of the serial is actually very popular in the district or area. In that case, there is a scope for him or her to get elected. If voters drop the ballot paper into the ballot box without any cross or tick mark against any particular candidate, the vote goes to the party, not to any candidate. But voters may also place a cross or tick mark against a specific candidate (serial number), in which case this vote will go to that serial number (candidate), not to the party as a whole. If a candidate receives enough personal votes, he might be elected, even if his name appears close to the bottom of the candidate list. But there is a calculation of how many votes he must receive.

Another misconception among some people in Bangladesh is that, under the proportional representation system, a vote cast in one area may be transferred to another. There is no scope for it to occur without the voter's will and intention. Under this system, the name and serial number of the candidate on the party's ballot paper are clearly stated. Usually, voters cast their votes in favor of his party or the candidate of his electoral district. But if any voter wants, he can vote for a candidate from another area. It requires some additional steps to fulfill. But nothing happens without his or her will and knowledge. There is no scope for it.

Concerned stakeholders can consider introducing a mixed system of representation in the lower chamber.  The number of seats in the lower house might be increased to 500 (five hundred). 300 can be elected directly, and 200 can be elected through proportional representation. It will not be a complicated process to implement.