THE problem with democratic elections is that the results are likely to be disputed by the losers. Shenanigans with ballot boxes, maneuvers to stop supporters of one side actually voting, dishonesty in the count itself or disputes over the accuracy of electronic voting machines frequently bedevil the acceptance of the results.

This is not just a problem for democracies in the Developing World. Even a US presidential election teetered on the brink of chaos after a dispute over Florida voting machines. In 2000, Republican candidate George W. Bush won the White House thanks to a nano-thin majority over Democrat opponent Al Gore. The Gore camp disputed the result and went to law. In the end the demanded manual recount was stopped by a Supreme Court ruling. Thereafter, even those Americans who felt Gore had been robbed of victory, rallied round the office of the presidency, if not the man who now occupied it.

But the United States is a mature democracy. There is a general respect for the country’s institutions, if not for the office holders within them. However, this may have changed with Donald Trump. The almost demented liberal media-led campaign against this most singular of modern US presidents does seem to pose a genuine threat to the institutions upon which nation has been built.

Like many recently-created democracies Bangladesh is a young country with tender institutions. It seems that for many citizens, as in other new democracies, the concept of political renewal with a change of government, does not really exist. The idea that the role of a parliamentary opposition is to challenge the ruling party and act as a moral, if not actual check on its powers, appears quite alien.

Those who argue for the spread of democracy, insist that it is the duty of politicians to protect the system which brings them to power at one election but can turf them out at the next. No less importantly, there is supposed to be a disconnect between the government as the executive, and the judiciary, who are meant to be unbiased. Depending on a country’s constitution, independent judges should have the power to challenge a government when it breaks the rules.

The landslide victory for Bangladesh premier Sheikh Hasina and her Awami League gives her a third consecutive term in office. Her long-term rival, Khaleda Zia could not take part in the vote because she has been jailed. Candidates from her Bangladesh National Party are claiming the election was widely rigged and are demanding recounts in most of the 300 contested seats.

There does seem little doubt that there has been an element of fraud in the vote. This being the case it is unfortunate, given the stunning economic achievements of Sheikh Hasina’s government. Growth has averaged more than 6 percent for a decade, the 165 million population is now almost self-sufficient in food production while millions have been lifted out of poverty. Even Bangladesh’s cricketers now shine on the international stage. The country feels good about itself. It is perfectly possible that the Awami League could have won the election fair and square on its record alone. But instead the very real doubts over the legitimacy of her win will tarnish the reputation of Sheikh Hasina’s new government and sow seeds of dissension whose sprouting could one day challenge the very existence of Bangladesh’s democracy.