Bangladesh Caretaker System: How Temporary Governments Shape Democracy and Transition

When a country needs to hold elections but can’t trust its ruling party to run them fairly, what do you do? Bangladesh caretaker system, a temporary, non-partisan government structure used to oversee national elections. Also known as interim government, it was created to remove political bias from the voting process and give all parties an equal shot. Between 1991 and 2008, this system ran Bangladesh’s elections. A neutral chief adviser—usually a retired judge—led a council of experts with no ties to any party. Their job wasn’t to govern long-term, but to hand over power cleanly after voting ended.

This model didn’t just appear out of nowhere. It came after years of election fraud, violence, and public distrust. The system worked because it was simple: no party could campaign while in power, no state resources could be used for advantage, and no official could change the rules mid-process. It wasn’t perfect—protests still happened, legal challenges cropped up—but for nearly two decades, it was the best tool Bangladesh had to protect its democracy.

Then, in 2011, the Supreme Court ruled the caretaker system unconstitutional. The government argued it gave too much power to unelected officials. Critics said it was removed because the ruling party feared losing control. Either way, the system vanished. Since then, elections have been run by the sitting government, and with it, accusations of bias have returned. The absence of the caretaker system hasn’t just changed how votes are counted—it’s changed how people feel about their voice in politics.

What’s left now? A debate. Some want the caretaker system back, redesigned with clearer limits and oversight. Others say elections can be fair without it, if the election commission is truly independent. Countries like Pakistan and Nepal tried similar models. Some worked. Others collapsed under pressure. Bangladesh’s case isn’t unique—it’s part of a global pattern: when power gets too concentrated, democracy gets fragile.

Below, you’ll find deep dives into how temporary governments function, what happens when electoral neutrality breaks down, and how other nations handle the same challenge. You’ll see how legal frameworks, public trust, and institutional design shape whether an election is seen as legitimate—or just another power play. This isn’t just about Bangladesh. It’s about how any country tries to hold onto democracy when the stakes are highest.