Political Leadership, Polarization, and the Failure of Democratic Transition in Bangladesh: Evidence from a Perception-Based Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60087/jklst.vol5.n2.010Abstract
Electoral violence and difficulties in peaceful transfers of power have repeatedly challenged democratic consolidation in Bangladesh. This article examines how respondents connect political leadership, political polarization, party behaviour, and expectations of democratic leadership to electoral conflict and democratic transition. The analysis draws on a quantitative cross-sectional survey of 197 respondents from all eight administrative divisions of Bangladesh. Data were collected through a structured questionnaire and analyzed with descriptive statistics, reliability tests, cross-tabulation, Chi-square tests, composite means, and Pearson correlation. The findings show that 89.8% of respondents rated political polarization as high or very high, and the association between age group and perceived polarization was statistically significant (chi-square = 85.722, df = 12, p < .001). In addition, 89.8% agreed or strongly agreed that political parties contribute to electoral violence. Respondents evaluated existing leadership critically: 68.0% stated that political leaders did not play effective roles in reducing electoral violence, while personality-centered (87.7%), confrontational (81.5%), and authoritarian (71.8%) leadership were the most frequently identified features of political culture. At the same time, respondents strongly endorsed political tolerance, compliance with electoral law, fair participation of all parties, and avoidance of provocative rhetoric as leadership responsibilities. The expected leadership-role construct had a composite mean of 4.67 (SD = .703) and was strongly associated with transition-related problem recognition (r = .876, p < .001). The article interprets the contrast between negatively perceived leadership culture and strongly endorsed democratic leadership norms as a leadership legitimacy gap. Because the study is purposively sampled and perception-based, the results are interpreted as associations rather than causal effects or population estimates. The analysis suggests that reducing electoral conflict requires not only institutional reform but also leadership restraint, pluralist party competition, political tolerance, and credible commitment to democratic rules.
Downloads
References
Abels, C. M., Huttunen, K. J. A., Hertwig, R., & Lewandowsky, S. (2024). Dodging the autocratic bullet: Enlisting be-havioural science to arrest democratic backsliding. Be-havioural Public Policy, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2024.43
Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton Uni-versity Press.
Bermeo, N. (2016). On democratic backsliding. Journal of Democracy, 27(1), 5-19. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2016.0012
Birch, S., Daxecker, U. E., & Höglund, K. (2020). Electoral violence: An introduction. Journal of Peace Research, 57(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343319889657
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. Yale University Press.
Diamond, L. (1999). Developing democracy: Toward con-solidation. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Fischer, J. (2002). Electoral conflict and violence: A strategy for study and prevention. International Foundation for Election Systems.
Graham, M. H., & Svolik, M. W. (2020). Democracy in America? Partisanship, polarization, and the robustness of support for democracy in the United States. American Po-litical Science Review, 114(2), 392-409. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000052
Hassan, M., & Nazneen, S. (2017). Violence and the break-down of the political settlement: An uncertain future for Bangladesh? Conflict, Security & Development, 17(3), 205-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/14678802.2017.1319695
Höglund, K. (2009). Electoral violence in conflict-ridden societies: Concepts, causes, and consequences. Terrorism and Political Violence, 21(3), 412-427.
Huntington, S. P. (1991). The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century. University of Oklahoma Press.
Jackman, D., & Maitrot, M. (2022). The party-police nexus in Bangladesh. The Journal of Development Studies, 58(8), 1516-1530. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2022.2055463
Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. Crown.
Lewis, D. (2011). Bangladesh: Politics, economy and civil society. Cambridge University Press.
Lijphart, A. (1977). Democracy in plural societies: A com-parative exploration. Yale University Press.
Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. (1996). Problems of democratic tran-sition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and post-communist Europe. Johns Hopkins University Press.
McCoy, J., Rahman, T., & Somer, M. (2018). Polarization and the global crisis of democracy: Common patterns, dy-namics, and pernicious consequences for democratic poli-ties. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(1), 16-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218759576
Mosca, G. (1939). The ruling class. McGraw-Hill.
Norris, P. (2014). Why electoral integrity matters. Cambridge University Press.
O'Donnell, G., & Schmitter, P. C. (1986). Transitions from authoritarian rule: Tentative conclusions about uncertain democracies. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Orhan, Y. E. (2022). The relationship between affective po-larization and democratic backsliding: Comparative evi-dence. Democratization, 29(4), 714-735. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2021.2008912
Pareto, V. (1935). The mind and society. Harcourt, Brace.
Rahman, T. (2019). Party system institutionalization and pernicious polarization in Bangladesh. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 681(1), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716218817280
Riaz, A. (2021). The pathway of democratic backsliding in Bangladesh. Democratization, 28(1), 179-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2020.1818069
Sartori, G. (1976). Parties and party systems: A framework for analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Schedler, A. (2023). Rethinking political polarization. Po-litical Science Quarterly, 138(3), 335-359. https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad038
Sisk, T. D. (2008). Elections in fragile states: Between voice and violence. International Studies Association / Univer-sity of Denver.
Svolik, M. W. (2019). Polarization versus democracy. Journal of Democracy, 30(3), 20-32.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Brooks/Cole.
Tilly, C. (1978). From mobilization to revolution. Addi-son-Wesley.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Knowledge Learning and Science Technology ISSN: 2959-6386 (online)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
©2024 All rights reserved by the respective authors and JKLST.
