Abu Rahat Murshed Kabir | 21 December 2025
Bangladesh is entering an election season under the shadow of a question that is never merely technical: who can guarantee public safety without turning public order into political control? In January 2026, the security conversation has sharpened in ways that are difficult to ignore. Reports point to heightened concern about unrest, threats surrounding diplomatic facilities, and anxiety about violence as the February 12, 2026 general election approaches.
At the same time, this is not simply a story about street-level volatility. It is also a story about institutions and law: the constitutional promises Bangladesh makes to citizens, the statutory powers the state gives to police and security agencies, and the legal tests that determine when “maintaining order” becomes an excuse to shrink civic space. If you want to understand Bangladesh’s law-and-order reality today, you have to look at both layers together.
The present security climate: fear, uncertainty, and the politics of protection
In late January 2026, international attention has focused on security warnings connected to Bangladesh. Reuters reported that India decided to withdraw families and dependents of its diplomats from Bangladesh due to “mounting security concerns” ahead of the election. Separately, reporting has described repeated protests and disruption, including fear among international students and the destabilizing effects of shutdowns and unrest.
There are also claims and counterclaims about the capacity of the state to control violence. A recurring theme in recent coverage is the possibility of weapons circulating outside state control and the fear that political competition may become more violent in the run-up to voting. Even if you treat every such report with caution, the basic pattern is clear: public order is becoming a political issue because it affects the credibility of the electoral environment.
The constitutional baseline: Bangladesh’s promise of rights, and the state’s duty to protect
Bangladesh’s Constitution is not silent on public order. It anchors a citizen’s expectation that the state must both protect life and liberty and ensure that government power is exercised “in accordance with law.” Article 32 states that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.
That sounds straightforward, but in periods of tension it becomes the core dispute: what counts as “in accordance with law” when police are dispersing protests, when preventive detention is invoked, or when speech-related security laws are enforced? The constitutional idea is not that the state can never act strongly. It is that strong action must be legally grounded, proportionate, and reviewable.
The Constitution also recognises assembly rights, subject to “reasonable restrictions” in the interests of public order and other aims. This is the classic democratic balancing act: allow peaceful participation while restricting violence and threats. The practical challenge is how often, and how loosely, restrictions are used.
Policing powers: old statutes, modern realities
Bangladesh’s policing structure still rests heavily on colonial-era legal frameworks, including the Police Act, 1861. That matters because statutes shape supervision and discipline, and they define how force is organised. The Police Act’s design assumes a model of administrative control and a chain of command oriented toward maintaining order. In a modern democracy, that model must coexist with constitutional rights and judicial scrutiny.
Then there is criminal procedure: the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (CrPC), still central to arrests, searches, investigations, and magistrate oversight. During unrest, the real-world effect is immediate. Questions such as “Was the arrest lawful?” or “Was detention extended properly?” or “Was a search conducted with required safeguards?” determine whether order is being maintained through law or through fear.
Elections and legitimacy: why “law and order” is never neutral
In an election context, “law and order” rhetoric tends to do two things at once:
-
It can be a genuine call for security so citizens can vote without intimidation.
-
It can become a political instrument to restrict opponents, choke assembly, or criminalise protest.
Bangladesh’s recent political transitions heighten that tension. Reporting has described the interim government’s political decisions, including a ban on activities of the Awami League under the Anti-Terrorism Act in 2025, illustrating how security law can be used in high-stakes political moments.
None of this automatically tells you whether a given action is justified. It does tell you what citizens should ask: What is the legal basis? Is it time-limited? Is there due process? Can courts review it? Are the rules being applied evenly?
The danger zone: when “public order” crowds out “public trust”
Public order is not only the absence of violence. It is also the presence of legitimacy. A state can reduce street disorder temporarily through heavy-handed tactics, but if people conclude that police power is partisan, the state may be creating future instability.
This is where constitutional rights matter most. Article 32’s promise of liberty “in accordance with law” is not just a phrase. It is supposed to function as a brake. When citizens fear arbitrary arrest, or when people believe speech laws are used selectively, they stop trusting the system, and they stop cooperating with it.
What to watch: five legal questions that will define the months ahead
If you’re tracking Bangladesh’s law-and-order trajectory toward the February 2026 election, the most useful lens is legal and procedural:
-
Use of arrest and remand: Are CrPC powers used narrowly and with documented grounds, or broadly to disrupt opponents?
-
Management of assemblies: Are restrictions tailored to violence risk, or used to suppress peaceful mobilisation?
-
Preventive measures: Is preventive detention invoked, and if so, are constitutional safeguards followed?
-
Anti-terror framework: Are “national security” claims tied to credible threats or stretched to cover ordinary political activity?
-
Digital enforcement: Are cyber laws used to curb incitement and disinformation, or to silence critics?
Bangladesh’s present moment is not just a security problem. It is a constitutional test. And in constitutional tests, the details matter: legal basis, proportionality, oversight, and equality before the law.
