Yunus sets Bangladesh general elections for February 2026
Originally proposed for April, the election date was advanced following pressure from major political forces, particularly the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), for a quicker democratic transition.
However, Yunus's commitment to fairness is facing criticism, as the influential Awami League, the former ruling party, remains banned from participating.
Analysts have warned that excluding the Awami League may undermine the legitimacy of the electoral process, despite Yunus's pledges of openness.
The announcement comes at a time of growing political unrest and the resurgence of Islamist groups, including Jamaat-e-Islami, raising further concerns about the future of governance and stability in Bangladesh.
Observers note that the upcoming election will be a critical test of Yunus's ability to lead a peaceful transition and navigate the country through a deeply divided political landscape.
© 2000 - 2025 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Bawaba
6 days ago
- Al Bawaba
Yunus sets Bangladesh general elections for February 2026
Published August 5th, 2025 - 04:37 GMT Yunus's commitment to fairness is facing criticism, as the influential Awami League, the former ruling party, remains banned from participating. — ANI Digital (@ani_digital) August 5, 2025 Originally proposed for April, the election date was advanced following pressure from major political forces, particularly the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), for a quicker democratic transition. However, Yunus's commitment to fairness is facing criticism, as the influential Awami League, the former ruling party, remains banned from participating. Analysts have warned that excluding the Awami League may undermine the legitimacy of the electoral process, despite Yunus's pledges of openness. The announcement comes at a time of growing political unrest and the resurgence of Islamist groups, including Jamaat-e-Islami, raising further concerns about the future of governance and stability in Bangladesh. Observers note that the upcoming election will be a critical test of Yunus's ability to lead a peaceful transition and navigate the country through a deeply divided political landscape. © 2000 - 2025 Al Bawaba (
Jordan Times
18-05-2025
- Jordan Times
Mutual assured development destruction
NEW DELHI – Toward the end of the ancient Indian epic the Mahabharata, Krishna's Yadava clan self-destructs. Many dark omens presage their downfall: nature behaves erratically and pests multiply. Sin, deception, and violence proliferate, eroding trust and solidarity. Clan members humiliate and insult wise elders. When Krishna's extended family goes on a picnic, the men get drunk, argue, and attack each other, until eventually all of them are dead. This cautionary tale has gained new resonance as geopolitical tensions, including in South Asia, escalate, and many countries embrace protectionist policies. US President Donald Trump's second administration has contributed significantly to the current fragmentation and disorder. But other wealthy countries have exacerbated the situation by failing to show any real solidarity in response to Trump's hostile policies. The lack of development cooperation is a prime example of this growing appetite for mutual assured destruction. To be sure, aid from donor countries was already declining, and recent events have exposed the system's injustices. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted Western governments' greed, undermining others' trust in their global leadership. Moreover, the fact that these governments have directed most of their dwindling foreign-aid budgets to Ukraine since Russian's 2022 invasion, diverting funds away from other war-torn and desperately poor countries, has underscored the largely self-serving approach to such 'charity' flows. Still, it is surprising, and dispiriting, that other donor countries have not stepped up after Trump terminated almost all US foreign-aid funding and programming. This would have been the obvious thing to do, not necessarily out of solidarity, but simply because of geopolitical self-interest. For starters, Trump's indiscriminate attacks on allies and rivals alike have demonstrated the necessity of coordinated action, which requires building alliances, supporting multilateralism, and cultivating soft power. One easy and relatively cheap way to do that is by continuing to support multilateral institutions. Such funding may also defuse some of the anger that many people in the Global South feel about the Western world's complicity in the ongoing decimation and mass killings in Gaza. Moreover, the massive reduction in US direct aid and financing for international organizations will hinder the provision of global public goods, including health and climate stability. The concept of global public investment suggests that all countries have a stake in solving these challenges, and should thus contribute resources to addressing them, according to their means, and distribute the collected funds based on need and impact. But the response of most rich countries has so far been appalling. Instead of scaling up foreign assistance, several European governments have slashed it, citing the need to channel funds to defense investment. As a result, some of the most immediate needs that fall under a global public investment framework are going unmet. This is especially baffling because the amounts required to plug the development-financing hole left by the United States are so small as to be trivial. For example, Trump's withdrawal of the US from the World Health Organisation, which remains absolutely critical for managing global health threats, means that the WHO faces a $1.9 billion budget shortfall in 2026-27, a gap that rich countries and even most large middle-income countries could easily afford to fill. It's a similar story at other international organisations. The United Nations World Food Programme faces an estimated 40 per cent reduction in funding, equal to roughly $4 billion. The WFP, which served more than 100 million people in 2024 and won the Nobel Peace Prize five years ago, must now downsize its staff by nearly one-third (around 6,000 positions worldwide) and reduce the amount of life-saving food that it provides, because no other countries have offered to offset the shortfall. Similarly, the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), which relied on the US for more than 40 per cent of its financing, will need to cut more than half of its workforce and reduce or eliminate some of its essential programs. (Switzerland and the United Kingdom, two other major UNAIDS funders, have likewise reduced their contributions). That could lead to six times more HIV infections and a 400 per cent increase in AIDS deaths by 2029, as well as the emergence of new strains, which would have negative repercussions for all countries. But the organization's budget gap is a modest $58 million, the same shortfall facing the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which has to lay off 20 per cent of its staff. Given these minuscule sums, filling the gap left by the US would have a negligible fiscal impact on traditional donors and large middle-income countries. But only a handful of countries, like South Korea, have responded to the funding crisis, preventing essential organisations' collapse and enabling them to function properly, for now. If wealthier countries refuse to provide for the global common good, the multilateral system as we know it will not survive. Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, is a member of the Club of Rome's Transformational Economics Commission and Co-Chair of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2025.
Al Bawaba
13-05-2025
- Al Bawaba
Over 50 killed in recent clashes with India: Pakistan
ISLAMABAD Also Read The real cost of war between India and Pakistan: $96B At least 51 people, including 40 civilians and 11 armed forces personnel, were killed and 199 others injured in the latest hostilities with India, Pakistan's military said on Tuesday. The civilians killed included seven women and 15 children, while 121 others were injured, it added. Among 11 armed forces personnel, seven were soldiers and four others were from the Pakistan Air Force, while 78 others were injured, said a statement by Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the media wing of the Pakistani army. "The nation remains resolute in the face of aggression. Let there be no ambiguity: any attempt to challenge Pakistan's sovereignty or territorial integrity, ever again, shall be met with a swift, full-spectrum, and decisive response," it said. Tensions surged between the two nuclear neighbors after India launched Operation Sindoor during the intervening night of May 6 and 7, hitting what New Delhi said were "nine terror locations" in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Asserting that Operation Sindoor had achieved its aim, the Indian side said that five of its armed forces personnel lost their lives during the operation. The rival militaries also engaged in heavy exchanges of fire, resulting in many deaths along the two sides of the Line of Control (LOC), a de facto border that divides the disputed Kashmir valley between the two neighbors. On Saturday, Pakistan mounted its response under the 'banner of Marka-e-Haq,' firing Al-Fatah missiles under Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos, or "Iron Wall,' hitting 26 Indian military targets and air force bases in Jammu and Kashmir as well as in mainland India. Pakistan said it shot down five Indian aircraft, but the Indian side had yet to officially respond to the statement. The latest hostilities ended after the US mediated a ceasefire between the two South Asian neighbors, which remains in effect since the weekend. India's Operation Sindoor was launched following the deaths of 26 people, mostly Indian tourists, on April 22 at the Pahalgam tourist site in Indian-administered Kashmir. New Delhi blamed Islamabad, which denied any role but offered a neutral probe. Soon after, the two sides took several reciprocal diplomatic measures, including the unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, a decades-long water-sharing pact, by New Delhi.
