“By Giving NCP a Bud, the Election Commission Suicided Itself!”
— Professor M. A. Barnik

1. Background:

In the political landscape of Bangladesh, a dispute has erupted between the Election Commission (EC) and the new political party, the National Consensus Party (NCP), over the allocation of the election symbol. The EC’s conduct surrounding NCP’s demand for the “Shapla” (Water Lily) symbol has already sparked deep public concern and widespread debate. By refusing to grant the symbol, the EC has created a situation of serious tension and mistrust.

2. The Demand for the Shapla Symbol and the EC’s Refusal:

From the very beginning, NCP demanded the “Shapla” symbol, describing it as a representation of national unity. According to the party, this symbol embodies Bangladesh’s independence, peace, and sovereignty—values deeply intertwined with the country’s historical identity.

However, the Election Commission repeatedly stated that due to “legal and constitutional obligations,” it could not allocate the Shapla symbol. Yet, surprisingly, the EC never identified or presented the specific clause or law that created such a restriction. Instead, the Commission stated, “We are not obliged to show the law”—a stance that clearly contradicts the principles of administrative ethics and transparency.

3. The Proposal of Inappropriate Symbols:

The EC suggested NCP choose from symbols like “Eggplant,” “Plate,” or “Bowl”—options the party considered demeaning and contrary to political decorum. The Commission further warned that if the NCP failed to choose one by October 19, it would unilaterally impose a symbol on the party.

Despite the warning, NCP remained firm on its demand for the “Shapla”, demonstrating the party’s steadfast commitment to its principles.

—

4. A New Proposal: “Shapla Bud” — or a Political Drama?

Finally, on October 29, the Election Commission offered NCP a new symbol: the “Shapla Bud.”

This move immediately raised critical questions:
If the “Shapla” could not be granted due to legal barriers, what legal explanation then permitted the “Shapla Bud”?

One analyst commented:

> “If the law prevents allocation of the Shapla, then what is the legal basis for granting the Shapla Bud? Clearly, some invisible political pressure is at work behind the Commission. By approving this Bud, the EC has effectively sacrificed itself.”

—

5. Invisible Pressure and the Democratic Crisis:

According to political observers, the EC’s position appears to serve the interest of a particular party rather than uphold neutrality. This wavering stance indicates the erosion of institutional independence.

One commentator noted:

> “By showing loyalty to one political side, the Election Commission has sacrificed its own independence. The NCP should reject the imposed symbol and instead launch a mass movement demanding the formation of a new, neutral Election Commission.”

6. Conclusion:

NCP’s insistence on the “Shapla” symbol is no longer merely a struggle over a political emblem—it has become a battle for administrative transparency, justice, and the dignity of democracy.

On one side stands the EC’s strange, coercive decision; on the other, NCP’s principled resilience. This conflict has transcended the boundaries of symbols to become a symbolic war for the soul of democracy and state morality.

In the end, by offering NCP the Bud (Kolī) instead of the full Shapla, the Election Commission has indeed made itself the ultimate suicide .