[🇧🇩] Everything about our constitution

[Saif]

Proposal to curtail prime minister’s absolute power

The active political parties including the BNP and other stakeholders are in agreement over the question of re-establishing a balance of power between the president and prime minister

en.prothomalo.com

Proposal to curtail prime minister’s absolute power
Riadul Karim
Dhaka
Published: 25 Jan 2025, 14: 51

The constitution reforms commission headed by Professor Ali Riaz handed over their report containing reform recommendations to the chief advisor Professor Muhammad Yunus at the chief advisor's office on Wednesday. Courtesy: Chief advisor's press wing

The constitution reform commission has recommended curtailing the prime minister’s absolute authority to increase the president’s power. The active political parties including the BNP and other stakeholders are in agreement on the question of re-establishing a balance of power between the president and prime minister. However, the discussions on how to establish the balance have not started yet.

Relevant sources say the interim government wants to hold dialogues with the political parties in February over the recommendations placed by the reform commissions. The government will try to find a way through these discussions.

Establishing a balance of power is also a key aspect of the 31-point reform proposal of the BNP. However, they have not elaborated the process of achieving that balance. The constitution reform commission has made several specific proposals to lessen the power of the prime minister and to extend the president’s authority.

Constitution reform commission sources say the issues have been specified in their reform proposal in detail. Work is underway to integrate the reforms. Detailed reports of the recommendations will be published after that. The president will hold more power as compared to the existing constitution if the recommendations made by the reform commission are implemented. It will curtail the absolute power of the prime minister.

Under the current system, the presidents have to do everything in consultation with the prime minister (PM) except the appointment of the PM and the chief justice. The commission has proposed to bring a change in this area. They recommended giving the president the authority to recruit some other constitutional posts in compliance with the specific procedures. The president would not be required to consult the prime minister in these cases as per the proposals.

Relevant persons say the implementation of the recommendations proposed by the constitution reform commission would reduce the absolute authority of the prime minister apparently. It will enhance the power of the president. Nevertheless, a question remains as to how far the president can act independently going beyond interference of the prime minister given the political culture of the country.

The constitution reform commission published a summary of the recommendations that they have come up with. It reads that the commission recommends some specific duties for the president. The president will consult the prime minister on all matters except these specific activities and issues mentioned in the constitution.

President’s power to be extended

Sources say there have been proposals to keep appointments of some constitutional posts such as the chief justice, Appellate Division and High Court justices and Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of Bangladesh, under the jurisdiction of the president who will appoint people in these posts following specific procedures. There will be no need of consulting the PM in this regard. It will enhance the opportunities for the judiciary to be free of interference of the executive. Besides, there could be a proposal to give the president the authority in case of recruitment to other posts specified by laws. The president would not need to consult the PM in these cases either.

Apart from that, the commission recommended formation of a ‘national constitutional council’ comprising representatives from the three branches of the state - judiciary, legislative and executive.

This council will propose names to the president for the posts of chief election commissioner (CEC) and other election commissioners, attorney general, Public Service Commission (PSC) chairman and its members, Human Rights Commission chief and other commissioners and chiefs of the defence forces. The president will have the authority to appoint people in these posts without the consent of the prime minister. The respective reform commissions have some proposals over the formation of constitutional institutions like the Election Commission and Anti-Corruption Commission and recruitment in the judiciary.

Proposal to curtail PM’s authority to declare emergency

According to the existing constitution, the president can declare a state of emergency for a maximum of 120 days. However, it needs approval from the prime minister before the declaration. The constitution reform commission says in its proposals that the president will have the authority to call an emergency only as per the decision of the proposed constitutional council. In other words, the PM will not have absolute power in this case too.

In the existing parliamentary structure, the prime minister, parliamentary leaders and chief of the ruling party are the same person. It was the same during the terms of both the Awami League and the BNP. It ensures an undisputed control of a single person in the parliament, government and the ruling party. The commission has proposed that a person serving as the prime minister will not be allowed to be the parliamentary leader or the chief of a political party at the same time.

Under the current constitution, the president has to do everything, except the appointment of the PM and chief justice, in consultation with the prime minister. That means it is the PM who actually holds an all-out authority in reality. There should be an arrangement which ensures that the prime minister does not hold absolute power. Making such proposals is a positive approach. MA Matin, Former justice

Speaking to Prothom Alo, constitution reform commission chief professor Ali Reaz said one of the main goals of their reform proposal is to bring a balance in the power between individuals (constitutional post holders) and institutions. The duties of the president have been elaborated in their recommendations.

Relevant persons say the implementation of the recommendations proposed by the constitution reform commission would reduce the absolute authority of the prime minister apparently. It will enhance the power of the president. Nevertheless, a question remains as to how far the president can act independently going beyond interference of the prime minister given the political culture of the country.

In the existing system, the president is elected as a person nominated by the ruling party. But, the process of presidential election as proposed by the commission makes it uncertain that the presidential candidate nominated by the ruling party will be elected.

The reform commission proposes that the president will be elected by the majority vote of the electoral college. Each member from both houses of the parliament, each district and city corporation coordination council will cast one vote each to elect the president. It makes it uncertain that a presidential candidate nominated by the party which has majority in both houses of the parliament will eventually get elected. The votes from the district and city corporation coordination councils will play a key role in this case.

Meanwhile, there has been a recommendation to amend the Article 70 of the constitution which will enable the lawmakers to veto against the party except issues related to financial bills. As a consequence, there will be scopes for a presidential candidate outside the ruling party to be elected. There is no such opportunity in the existing constitution.

Retired justice MA Matin told Prothom Alo, “Under the current constitution, the president has to do everything, except the appointment of the PM and chief justice, in consultation with the prime minister. That means it is the PM who actually holds all authority in reality. There should be an arrangement which ensures that the prime minister does not hold an all-out power. Making such proposals is a positive approach.”

Wait for dialogue

Of the six reform commissions formed by the interim government initially, the constitution, electoral, Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) and police reform commissions submitted their reports to chief adviser Dr. Muhammad Yunus on 15 January. These commissions are now working to prepare a unified set of recommendations. The reform commissions on public administration and the judiciary are scheduled to submit their reports by 31 January.

Different political parties, including the BNP, Ganatantra Mancha, Jamaat-e-Islami and the Communist Party of Bangladesh (CPB) have taken the submission of the reform commission report positively. However, the parties refrained from issuing any official statement in this regard as the commissions have not published the complete reports.

BNP secretary general Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir and other key political leaders of the country say they are reviewing the summary of the reports published by the reform commission within their parties.

The interim government said chief adviser Dr. Muhammad Yunus, along with the chiefs of the reform commissions will hold dialogue with the political parties in February. They will endeavour to reach consensus through discussions over the recommendations made by the reform commissions. BNP and other parties say they are waiting for that.

*This report appeared on the print and online versions of Prothom Alo and has been rewritten in English by Ashish Basu​

 

[Saif]

Can pluralism replace secularism in Bangladesh?

Replacing secularism with pluralism poses significant risks if not accompanied by clear and enforceable measures.

www.thedailystar.net

Can pluralism replace secularism in Bangladesh?

VISUAL: ANWAR SOHEL

The proposal to replace secularism with pluralism in Bangladesh's constitution has sparked significant debate, touching on issues of governance, social harmony, and the state's commitment to equality. While pluralism as a concept offers a promising framework for fostering inclusivity and mutual respect in a diverse society, the practical implications of this shift warrant careful scrutiny. Without clear and enforceable measures, such a transition could jeopardise the country's religious harmony and undermine the principles of equality that have long been embedded in its constitutional framework.

Pluralism, by definition, emphasises the recognition and celebration of diversity, promoting coexistence among different religious, cultural and ethnic communities. In a country like Bangladesh, where multiple religions and cultures coexist, the adoption of pluralism could theoretically enhance social cohesion and inclusivity. It acknowledges the diversity of the nation and seeks to create a society where all groups feel respected and represented. Unlike secularism, which often connotes a strict separation of religion and state functions, pluralism actively embraces the presence of diverse beliefs and traditions within the public sphere. This could pave the way for policies and practices that reflect the multicultural realities of Bangladesh, strengthening the social fabric and fostering a sense of belonging among all citizens.

However, this vision of pluralism faces significant challenges in the context of Bangladesh. One issue is the constitutional recognition of Islam as the state religion. While this provision reflects the demographic reality of Bangladesh, where the majority of the population identifies as Muslim, it creates an inherent contradiction with the principles of pluralism. Pluralism requires equal respect and treatment for all religions, yet the designation of a state religion can be perceived as privileging one faith over others. This tension risks alienating religious minorities and undermining the very inclusivity that pluralism seeks to promote.

Bangladesh's historical context further complicates the matter. The principle of secularism was enshrined in the country's constitution in the aftermath of the Liberation War, reflecting a commitment to religious equality and freedom. This ethos was seen as a rejection of the communalism that had plagued the region during the Partition. Over the years, secularism has been regarded by many as a cornerstone of Bangladesh's national identity, symbolising the aspiration to rise above religious divisions and ensure equal rights for all citizens. Replacing secularism with pluralism could therefore be perceived as a departure from this foundational principle, potentially alienating segments of society who view secularism as integral to the nation's identity.

Another significant challenge lies in the risk of misinterpreting or selectively implementing pluralism. Without clear constitutional safeguards and robust enforcement mechanisms, pluralism could become a vague idea rather than a practical reality. Ambiguity might allow the majority group to dominate the narrative, marginalising minorities under the guise of promoting diversity. For instance, policies or practices that ostensibly celebrate cultural diversity could end up favouring the majority religion or culture, perpetuating existing inequalities. Such outcomes would not only undermine the principles of pluralism, but also exacerbate social tensions and distrust among different communities.

Education and awareness are crucial to addressing these challenges. Schools and educational institutions should play a central role in promoting pluralistic values, challenging prejudices, and fostering empathy among students from an early age. By emphasising the importance of coexistence and mutual respect, education can lay the foundation for a more inclusive society. However, achieving this goal will require significant reforms in the education system, including the development of curricula that reflect the country's diversity and promote critical thinking about issues of identity and equality.

A strong legal framework is also essential for ensuring that pluralism translates into tangible protection for all citizens. Anti-discrimination laws must be strengthened to address inequalities and prevent hate speech, violence or other forms of bias based on religion, ethnicity or culture. These laws must be complemented by mechanisms for their effective enforcement, including independent institutions to investigate and address grievances. Moreover, the judiciary and law enforcement agencies must be trained to uphold these principles impartially, ensuring that all citizens, regardless of their background, can access justice and feel protected by the state.

Equitable representation is another critical aspect of pluralism. To truly reflect the diversity of Bangladesh, minorities must be adequately represented in political institutions, public services, and decision-making processes. This includes not only ensuring their presence but also creating an environment where their voices are heard and their concerns are addressed. Such representation can help bridge divides, foster trust, and promote policies that benefit all communities. However, achieving this requires a sustained commitment to affirmative action and other measures that address structural inequalities.

The success of pluralism also hinges on the protection of religious freedom, which entails not only the right to practise and propagate one's religion but also the freedom to celebrate cultural traditions and beliefs without fear of discrimination or persecution. Bangladesh's commitment to international human rights standards provides a framework for upholding these principles, but their implementation requires political will and societal support. Public awareness campaigns, community dialogues, and other initiatives can help build consensus around the importance of religious freedom and its role in fostering a harmonious society.
Despite its potential benefits, replacing secularism with pluralism poses significant risks if not accompanied by clear and enforceable measures. Having a state religion, in particular, presents a paradox. Without addressing this issue, the transition risks becoming a symbolic gesture, rather than a transformative change.

Md Abbas is a journalist at The Daily Star.​

 

[Saif]

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS: Fundamental rights, freedom highlighted

The constitution reform commission has proposed several changes in the existing constitution, including widening citizens’ legal protection for life and overhauling judicial and governance structures.

www.newagebd.net

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS: Fundamental rights, freedom highlighted
Staff Correspondent 09 February, 2025, 01:00

The constitution reform commission has proposed several changes in the existing constitution, including widening citizens’ legal protection for life and overhauling judicial and governance structures.

The commission, in its full report published on Saturday afternoon, recommended replacing ‘equal rights under the law’ with ‘equal protection and benefits under the law’.

The commission also suggested revising article 145A, stating that the government would require approval from the National Assembly and the Senate for any treaty, agreement, or document related to defence and strategic partnerships, borders, national security, natural resources, energy, and food security.

It also proposed to make the Election Commission, Human Rights Commission, Public Service Commission, Local Government Commission, and Anti-Corruption Commission constitutional bodies.

Formed on October 7, 2024, the commission handed over the full report with recommendations to chief adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus on January 15. A summary of the report was made public then.

According to the full report, a proposal was made to include separate articles on the protection of the right to life and child rights. Additionally, there were proposals for provisions against slavery, trafficking, sexual trafficking, and punishment for torture, cruelty and disgrace.

A separate chapter was proposed for constitutional protection against extrajudicial killings and forced abductions. The commission recommended that the constitution must explicitly state provisions for the protection of physical integrity and the safeguarding of body parts.

The recommendations also include provisions for free and compulsory education up to a certain level, the inclusion of higher education and specially abled children, and guidelines to prevent the government from monopolising access to information and communication systems.

The commission also recommended abolishing several articles, including 13, 15, 17, 18, 18A, 19, 20, 23, 23A, 24, and 25, which cover principles of ownership, basic necessities, free and compulsory education, public health and morality, environmental and biodiversity protection, equality of opportunity, work as a right and duty, national culture, tribal and ethnic communities, and national monuments.

These articles were proposed to be included in the fundamental rights and freedoms part of the constitution.

The commission also recommended substituting ‘Janaganatantri Bangladesh’ for ‘Ganaprajatantri Bangladesh’ as the constitutional name of the state and replacing the term ‘projatantra’ with ‘nagariktantra’ in the Bangla text of the constitution.

According to the report, the commission suggested the abolition of secularism and socialism, terming those irrelevant in the present context of Bangladesh.

The establishment of a bicameral legislature was proposed, consisting of a 400-member National Assembly, with 10 per cent of seats reserved for the youths, and a 100-member Senate elected through a proportional representation system, with five additional members appointed by the president.

As per the proposals, any amendment to the constitution would require the approval of two-thirds of the members from both the National Assembly and the Senate, followed by a referendum.

The commission also recommended the establishment of a National Constitution Council.

It proposed that the president be elected by an electoral college comprising 505 votes from the National Assembly and the Senate, 64 votes from district coordination councils, and one vote from each city corporation coordination council.

The commission suggested that any individual would not be able to hold the office of the president or the prime minister for more than two terms.

To promote judicial decentralisation, it recommended the establishment of permanent benches with equal authority to the High Court in every division.

It also proposed the formation of an independent judicial appointment commission and a permanent attorney service, and renaming lower courts as local courts.​

 

[Saif]

86pc people seek national elections under non-party govt

The BBS conducted the National Public Opinion Survey on Constitutional Reform 2024 on behalf of the Constitutional Reform Commission.

en.prothomalo.com

Constitutional Reform Commission
86pc people seek national elections under non-party govt
Staff Correspondent
Dhaka
Updated: 12 Feb 2025, 10: 28

As many as 86 per cent of people in the country think parliamentary elections should be held under a non-party government while a very few of them support a proportional electoral system. Most of the people want reserved seats from women in parliament with a direct voting system.

This was found in a survey, the National Public Opinion Survey on Constitutional Reform-2024, conducted by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) on behalf of the Constitutional Reform Commission.

The survey results were published along with the Commission report.

The BBS interviewed people aged between 18 and 75 at households in 64 districts in the country between 5 and 10 December 2024 for the survey.

The commission said data was collected from 45,925 households through sampling and a respondent was selected among family members aged 18 to 75 through the Kish Grid method.

Responses were collected from the selected individuals through specific questionnaires, and thus, 45,925 people participated in the survey.

The commission further said they also collected opinions of various stakeholders, but they decided to conduct the survey to reflect the opinions of people from all strata.

Regarding the election-time government, 86 per cent of respondents said elections should be conducted under the non-party government while six per cent opined for the partisan government, a little over 6 per cent said they are not aware of it and 2 per cent of the respondent declined answering.

All the elections that were held under a caretaker government were credible since democracy was restored in Bangladesh in 1991. But the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court declared the 13th amendment of constitution on caretaker government system void in 2011.

The Awami League government then amended the constitution and cancelled the caretaker government system.

Three national elections were held under the Awami League governments in 2014, 2018 and 2024 and those were one-sided, rigged and farce.

The July mass-uprising ousted the Awami League government on 5 August, followed by the formation of the interim government on 8 August.

The High Court on 18 December cancelled two articles of the 15th amendment of the constitution on abolishing the caretaker government system, saying that those articles contradict the constitution.

Talks are making a round at the country’s political domain on the inclusion of articles on elections under neutral governments in future. The constitution reform commission also recommended including an interim government system in the constitution.

Prime minister for 2 terms

Regarding the check and balance on the power of the president and prime minister, 37 per cent of respondents opined handing power to the president while 45 per cent said the prime minister should exercise it.

As many as 64 per cent of respondents supported a maximum two terms for prime minister, 10 per cent opposed it and 15 per cent thought there is no need to fix the term for prime minister.

Some 49 per cent of respondents think an individual should not hold the positions of the prime minister and the head of the ruling party simultaneously while 37 per cent opined a person can hold both positions at the same time.​

 

[Saif]

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM COMMISSION: Contradictions in justifying the removal of secularism

THE interim government formed a 7-member Constitutional Reform Commission on October 7, 2024, led by Professor Ali Riaz, to review and evaluate the existing constitution of Bangladesh and to recommend necessary amendments. This commission submitted its recommendations to the chief adviser...

www.newagebd.net

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM COMMISSION: Contradictions in justifying the removal of secularism
Golam Rasul 17 February, 2025, 23:14

THE interim government formed a 7-member Constitutional Reform Commission on October 7, 2024, led by Professor Ali Riaz, to review and evaluate the existing constitution of Bangladesh and to recommend necessary amendments. This commission submitted its recommendations to the chief adviser, professor Muhammad Yunus, on January 15, 2025. The full report of the recommendations made by the Constitutional Reform Commission was made public on February 8, 2025. Upon reviewing this report, it was observed that the Commission has recommended extensive and fundamental changes to the existing constitution, including its preamble and basic principles. Notably, the Commission has suggested removing secularism from the constitution while simultaneously proposing to retain Islam as the state religion.

Although these recommendations currently stand only as proposals, they will be finalised based on discussions with political parties and national consensus. Nevertheless, these recommendations will serve as the main foundation for dialogue and in building consensus. Therefore, it is necessary to review and analyse these recommendations. I will limit my discussion on the recommendation to remove secularism.

Secularism and its relevance

SECULARISM means that the state does not give special status to any religion, and state laws and policies are not based on religious principles. Secularism is intrinsically linked to the spirit of Bangladesh’s Liberation War and independence struggle. The Constitution of Bangladesh in 1972 included secularism as one of its fundamental principles. However, during military rule in 1977, secularism was removed and replaced with ‘absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah.’ In 1988, Islam was recognised as the state religion. Later, in 2011, the principle of secularism was reinstated in the constitution, although Islam remained the state religion.

The State of Pakistan was created based on the two-nation theory — a separate state for the Muslim population. The communal nature of the Pakistani state and its discriminatory behaviour towards religious minorities angered the majority population of East Pakistan. During the 1971 Liberation War, people of all religions, castes, and ethnicities fought together against the Pakistani occupation forces with the aim of establishing a non-communal and inclusive state and society. Therefore, removing secularism means abandoning the spirit of the Liberation War. Furthermore, one of the state’s primary responsibilities is to protect the rights of religious minorities. Secularism in the constitution acts as a legal safeguard for religious minorities. Many countries’ constitutions provide legal protection for religious minorities; even our neighbouring countries, India and Nepal, have such legal protections in their constitutions. Removing secularism would destroy the fundamental structure of the constitution.

Pre-constitutional concept of secularism

THE weak argument for removing secularism is that there was no mention of secularism in any pre-constitutional documents, such as the 1970 Legal Framework Order, the 1970 election manifesto of the Awami League, or the draft constitution of Pakistan proposed by the Awami League in 1971. Any mass uprising or revolution is a dynamic process through which people’s thoughts, consciousness, and aspirations evolve. A bloody revolution like the Liberation War brought people of all religions and castes together and fostered their consciousness, as clearly stated in professor Rehman Sobhan’s speech. According to professor Sobhan, after the 1969 mass uprising, the demands for regional autonomy, democracy, social justice, and secularism in East Pakistan were united in a broader movement. This statement by professor Sobhan is supported by professor Ali Riaz’s PhD research. In his research book published in 1993 by the University of Hawaii, professor Riaz mentions that, consistent with the spirit of the independence struggle, the Awami League proclaimed the high ideals of nationalism, socialism, democracy, and secularism as fundamental principles in the constitution.

As a result, secularism became an integral part of the spirit of the Liberation War. Professor Asif Nazrul mentions in several of his speeches that there were extensive discussions on secularism in the Constituent Assembly, and the most vigorous arguments in favour of secularism were made by Khandaker Mushtaque Ahmed, a leader of the right-wing faction of the Awami League.

Pre-independence concept of secularism

IN FACT, right after the creation of the State of Pakistan, in 1950, Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani demanded secularism. During the movement of 1950, he raised two demands: one was the right of self-determination for the Bengali nation, and the other was secularism — keeping the state separate from religion. This was reflected in the removal of the word “Muslim” from the Awami Muslim League’s name in 1955. The concept of secularism existed in Bangladesh even before the creation of Pakistan. Sher-e-Bangla A K Fazlul Huq said at the All India Muslim League Conference in 1918 that there was no difference in the exploitation and oppression by Hindu landlords and Muslim landlords, Hindu moneylenders, and Muslim moneylenders. All poor farmers, regardless of being Hindu or Muslim, were similarly victims of exploitation and oppression. Therefore, the issue of exploitation of Muslim farmers was not communal; at its root were the zamindari (landlord) and mahajani (moneylender) systems. Hence, both Hindu and Muslim communities should reject communalism and work towards abolishing the zamindari and mahajani systems.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, realised the importance of secularism immediately after the creation of Pakistan. In the first session of the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947, he firmly stated that Pakistan would be a state where every citizen, irrespective of religion or caste, would enjoy equal rights and freedom. He clearly declared, ‘You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques, or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste — it is no concern of the State.’ State decisions would be made on political grounds, not religious ones. However, after Jinnah’s death, the then leaders of Pakistan deviated from his ideals and integrated religion intstatete governance.

Pluralism and secularism

ANOTHER argument for removing secularism as a fundamental principle of the state is that ‘secularism is not consistent with the concept of a pluralistic society in Bangladesh and is essentially anti-democratic’. Pluralism is a modern concept that is relatively new to the culture and politics of Bangladesh, and its essence is still not understood by many. However, secularism and pluralism are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary. Secularism ensures the freedom for followers of all religions to practice their respective faiths freely, which in turn supports the coexistence of all religious believers and aids pluralism. In many countries, such as Canada, France, and the United States, secularism and democracy coexist. Furthermore, secularism is a fundamental human right, while pluralism is an ideal, a desired goal. We certainly aspire to achieve pluralism, but not at the cost of fundamental human rights like religious freedom.

Inherent contradictions in justifying the removal of secularism

ONE of the major self-contradictions in this report is that it recommends removing secularism on one hand, while on the other hand, it suggests retaining the current constitutional provision of the state religion, i.e., Islam. It also recommends including ‘Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim / In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful’ in the preamble of the constitution. They propose removing secularism under the guise of pluralism while simultaneously recommending a state religion, which contradicts the Commission’s stated principles of pluralism and equality and goes against democratic values. Notably, professor Riaz, in his book on the political history of Bangladesh, described the inclusion of ‘Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim’ in the constitution through the Fifth Amendment in 1977 as ‘‘Islamisation of the constitution and the State’ and described it as a severe blow to secular politics in Bangladesh and a pathway for the rise of religious forces in politics.

Professor Riaz was a staunch critic of the Eighth Amendment to the constitution during H M Ershad’s regime, which declared Islam as the state religion. Naturally, the question arises as to why there is such self-contradiction in the Reform Commission’s recommendations on secularism. From the above discussion, it is clear that the arguments for removing secularism from the constitution are extremely weak, self-contradictory, and contrary to the spirit of the anti-discrimination student movement and the July 2024 mass uprising. Just like the Liberation War, the July 2024 mass uprising also saw people of various religions and beliefs unite against the autocratic government with the goal of establishing a non-discriminatory state. The introduction of Islam as the state religion has profoundly affected the character of Bangladesh’s constitution and created a division between Muslim and non-Muslim citizens in Bangladesh.

Bangladesh is a multi-religious and multi-cultural country, where, besides Muslims, the Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, and indigenous communities reside. The recommendation to remove secularism from the constitution could increase divisions among political parties, weakening national unity and negatively affecting social harmony.

Golam Rosul is a professor and the chairperson of the Department of Economics at the International University of Business Agriculture and Technology.​

 

[Saif]

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM: Political, civic groups least concerned about language

Among the 28 political parties and alliances that submitted their respective proposals to the constitution reform commission, only two proposed that Bangla should remain as the state language and other mother tongues should be given constitutional recognition...

www.newagebd.net

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM: Political, civic groups least concerned about language
Sadiqur Rahman 19 February, 2025, 23:48

Among the 28 political parties and alliances that submitted their respective proposals to the constitution reform commission, only two proposed that Bangla should remain as the state language and other mother tongues should be given constitutional recognition.

Civic and professional groups also showed minimal concern over language, as only eight out of 55 recommended that the mother tongues of all ethnic communities be recognised alongside Bangla as the state language.

However, most of the responding parties and groups recommended to the constitution reform commission that ‘Bangalee and ‘Bangalee nationalism’ should be replaced with ‘Bangladeshi’ and “Bangladeshi nationalism” in Articles 6 and 9 of the existing constitution respectively.

The constitution reform commission, along with three other reform commissions on police, electoral matters and the Anti-Corruption Commission, submitted their reports to interim government chief adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus on 15 January.

The full reports of the commissions were made public on February 8.

The constitution reform commission recommends that the state language be Bangla and that the constitution recognises as mother tongues all the native languages spoken by its citizens as mother tongues.

‘There is a bad sore in the constitution regarding the recognition of mother tongues and national identity. We have considered this matter with great importance,’ said Firoz Ahmed, a member of the constitution reform commission.

The Article 3 of the existing constitution states that Bangla is the state language and the Article 23 states that the state shall adopt measures to conserve the cultural traditions and heritage of the people and foster and improve the national language, literature and arts.

According to the third part of the constitution reform commission’s full report, at least 28 political parties and alliances submitted their respective suggestions with only Jamaat-e-Islami and the United Peoples Democratic Front providing specific suggestions on language.

Jamaat-e-Islami recommended Bangla as the state language and advocated for the protection of other languages within the state’s boundaries.

Meanwhile, the UPDF recommended that Bangla be the language of the republic. It also proposed that the state, alongside Bangla, equally supports the preservation and development of the languages of the ethnic communities.

Among the 55 civic and professional groups providing suggestions on constitutional reforms, only eight organisations, including the Bangladesh Adivasi Forum, the CHT Working Group for National Reform, the Uttarbanga Adivasi Forum, the Bangladesh Indigenous Peoples’ Network, Naripokkho, and the Bangladesh Law Alliance, submitted suggestions on language issues.

These organisations advocated for the recognition of the mother tongues of all ethnic communities.

Most political parties and civil society organisations, however, recommended abolishing Articles 6 and 9 of the existing constitution which broadly recognise the Bangla language as a key factor in determining the national identity.

Article 6(2) of the existing constitution states that the people of Bangladesh shall be known as Bangalees as a nation and that the citizens of Bangladesh shall be known as Bangladeshis.

Moreover, the Article 9 states that Bangalee nationalism shall be based on the unity and solidarity of the Bangalee nation which, deriving its identity from its language and culture, attained sovereign and independent Bangladesh through a united and determined struggle in the War of Independence.​

 

[Saif]

Amendments must not serve any group

Eminent jurist Dr Kamal Hossain yesterday said that steps must be taken to ensure that the constitution cannot be manipulated to benefit any particular person or group.

www.thedailystar.net

Amendments must not serve any group
Says Dr Kamal about constitution

Eminent jurist Dr Kamal Hossain yesterday said that steps must be taken to ensure that the constitution cannot be manipulated to benefit any particular person or group.

"We must ensure that any change or amendment to the constitution properly reflects the aspirations of the people of the country. It must also be ensured that the constitution is not manipulated for the benefit of any individual or group."

"No initiative to amend the constitution should be driven by narrow interests. Any amendment should be pursued through extensive consultation and national consensus. Otherwise, these changes will fail to bring about national welfare," he said.

Kamal Hossain, one of the framers of Bangladesh's constitution, was speaking as the chief guest at a discussion titled The 1972 Constitution and Proposed Reforms, organised by the Bangladesh Gonotantrik Ainjibi Samity at the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) auditorium yesterday afternoon.

Bangladesh's constitution reflects the nation's struggle, he said.

"It is not merely a legal document but a reflection of our dreams, aspirations, and struggles. Discussions on reviewing and reforming the constitution as per the needs of the time are not new, but the question remains -- how much these changes will reflect the will of the people?"

He said if the amendments truly reflect the people's aspirations, this would be the appropriate way to move forward.

"We have witnessed the events of 2024. In particular, the experience of August 5 reminded us that people's aspirations can never be ignored. The student movement is part of our historical continuity, where a generation has taken to the streets for its just demands -- just as we saw in 1952, 1969, and 1971. This movement is not limited to a specific time frame; it is an integral part of our national consciousness."

He added, "The Liberation War of 1971 gave us the dream of an exploitation-free, just, and democratic state. The 1972 constitution was promulgated to realise that dream."

The event, presided over by Senior Advocate Subrata Chowdhury, president of Bangladesh Gonotantrik Ainjibi Samity, was also addressed by former state minister for Information Prof Abu Sayeed, Bangla Academy President Prof Abul Kashem Fazlul Haque, Bangladesh Mahila Parishad President Fouzia Moslem, senior journalist Sohrab Hasan, and Bangladesh Gonotantrik Ainjibi Samity General Secretary Senior Advocate Zahidul Bari, among others.​

 

[Saif]

Major parties oppose MPs’ freedom to vote against their own party in parliament

All three parties insist that MPs should not have freedom in confidence votes, just as with the finance bill. In such cases, MPs must strictly follow their party’s position. According to Article 70 of the existing constitution, MPs cannot vote against their own party. The article states that if...

en.prothomalo.com

Major parties oppose MPs’ freedom to vote against their own party in parliament

BNP has proposed this position after carefully reviewing the region’s long-standing political culture and history. The party believes that ensuring the government’s stability is crucial.

Riadul Karim
Dhaka
Updated: 02 Apr 2025, 15: 20

The major political parties do not want to give members of parliament (MPs) the freedom to vote against their own party in a no-confidence motion.

The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, and the National Citizen Party (NCP) do not fully agree with the recommendation of the Constitutional Reform Commission, which proposes that members of the lower house of parliament should have full authority to vote against their party on any issue except the finance bill.

All three parties insist that MPs should not have freedom in confidence votes, just as with the finance bill. In such cases, MPs must strictly follow their party’s position.

According to Article 70 of the existing constitution, MPs cannot vote against their own party. The article states that if an MP elected as a party candidate resigns from that party or votes against it in parliament, their seat will be vacated.

Due to this provision, no law or proposal can pass in parliament without the government’s approval. It also prevents the possibility of a no-confidence motion being brought against the Prime Minister or any other official.

The debate over Article 70 has been ongoing for decades. It began when the constitution was first drafted in 1972. Opponents of the article argue that it limits the freedom of MPs and concentrates excessive power in the hands of the Prime Minister.

On the other hand, those in favour of keeping it claim that removing this provision would destabilise the government, potentially causing parliament to collapse within days.

They also argue that its removal could lead to illegal financial transactions aimed at buying votes and influencing MPs to overthrow governments.

The Constitutional Reform Commission, led by Professor Ali Riaz, has proposed changes to this article. It has recommended introducing a bicameral legislature and allowing MPs in the lower house to vote against their party’s stance on any issue except finance bills.

The country’s political culture has not yet matured to a level where MPs can be granted full freedom in confidence votes. If such freedom is allowed, no government will last more than one or two months, leading to instability.

The National Consensus Commission has sought the views of political parties on 166 key recommendations made by five reform commissions, including this one. Several parties, including BNP, Jamaat-e-Islami, and NCP, have already expressed their opinions.

The National Consensus Commission is set to hold separate discussions with the three parties soon.

Validity of the commission’s recommendations

In its report, the Constitutional Reform Commission explained the rationale behind expanding MPs’ voting rights. It stated that Article 70 compels MPs to accept party decisions without asking any question. Although they are allowed to express their opinions within party meetings, they lack the freedom to vote against their party’s proposals. As a result, the Constitution enforces strict party loyalty at the cost of MPs’ ability to represent their constituencies effectively.

The Commission further argued that while Article 70 was originally intended to prevent floor-crossing, its impact has gone far beyond that purpose.

The provision, it noted, contradicts democratic principles. While designed to ensure stability, it has instead weakened political deliberation and party accountability. The restriction limits MPs’ ability to advocate for their constituencies and exercise their independent judgment.

Different Positions of Parties

According to relevant sources, in its written opinion submitted to the National Consensus Commission regarding the power of MPs to vote against their party, BNP stated that voting against the party should not be allowed in matters involving confidence votes, finance bills, constitutional amendment bills, and national security issues. However, on other issues, MPs should be free to express their opinions.

Explaining the reasoning behind restricting freedom in confidence votes, BNP Standing Committee member Salahuddin Ahmed told Prothom Alo that before the creation of Bangladesh, governments in the subcontinent changed almost daily after 1954.

BNP has proposed this position after carefully reviewing the region’s long-standing political culture and history. The party believes that ensuring the government’s stability is crucial.

According to them, the country’s political culture has not yet matured to a level where MPs can be granted full freedom in confidence votes. If such freedom is allowed, no government will last more than one or two months, leading to instability.

When the Constitutional Reform Commission sought opinions from political parties, Jamaat-e-Islami stated in its proposal that the restriction on floor crossing should not be lifted as yet.

They argued that Article 70 was originally introduced to stabilise the parliamentary system and should remain in place for at least two more terms.

Jamaat-e-Islami reiterated this stance in its opinion submitted to the National Consensus Commission. The party’s Secretary General, Mia Golam Parwar, told Prothom Alo that their submission explained the importance of maintaining restrictions in certain cases, including finance bills and confidence votes.

He stated that a vote of confidence is a matter of party policy, and an MP represents their party in parliament. Therefore, MPs must align with their party’s policy. If MPs do not follow the party’s stance in a no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister or the President, it could lead to a breakdown in party discipline.

When the Constitutional Reform Commission sought opinions from political parties, Jamaat-e-Islami stated in its proposal that the restriction on floor crossing should not be lifted as yet.
The NCP, which led the July uprising, has also expressed the opinion that restrictions should remain on no-confidence votes, similar to finance bills.

NCP Joint Convener and Reform Coordination Committee Coordinator Sarwar Tusher told Prothom Alo that without such provisions, there is a risk of MPs being bought and sold. For the stability of parliament and the government, the party advocates for allowing MPs to freely express their opinions on all issues except money bills and confidence votes.

How Article 70 was added

The origins of Article 70 of the Constitution, added in 1972, are described in the book Bipula Prithibi by the late Professor Anisuzzaman. Professor Anisuzzaman, who was responsible for translating the 1972 Constitution into Bengali, wrote:

“Bangabandhu summoned Kamal twice to advise him on the constitution - I was also with him.… He said that during the Pakistan period, governments became unstable mainly because members of the council frequently changed parties or voted against their own party, violating party discipline. This needed to be stopped. A rule should be established stating that if an elected member disagrees with a party decision or votes against the party, they must resign, or their parliamentary membership should be forfeited. However, there should also be a provision ensuring that in such cases, they are not disqualified from contesting by-elections or future elections. This intention was reflected in Article 70 of the Constitution.”

Despite this, Article 70 was debated within the Constituent Assembly itself. Anisuzzaman noted in his book that National Assembly members AKM Mosharraf Hossain Akand, Asaduzzaman Khan, Abdul Muntakim Chowdhury, and Hafez Habibur Rahman opposed the article.

He wrote, “Hafez Habibur Rahman objected to Article 70 in the strongest terms. In his view, it would lead to party dictatorship and excessive control by party leaders.”

* The report, originally published in the Bangla edition of Prothom Alo, has been rewritten in English by Farjana Liakat​

 

[Saif]

A ‘new constitution’ and my discontents

Constitution-making is invariably an “elitist” chore, as scholars rightly call it “equitable elite bargaining.”

www.thedailystar.net

A ‘new constitution’ and my discontents

FILE VISUAL: ANWAR SOHEL

Since the fall of the Awami League government, we have been debating prospects of transitioning into a new republic with a new constitution. With the inception of the Jatiyo Nagorik Party (JNP), the debates and discussions are now taking a definite shape. We now have several concrete arguments with time—and alongside, the discontents too.

One argument is that the 1972 constitution-making episode was elitist and dominated by one party. It is quite a fair criticism that resonates with many feminist, Marxist scholars about virtually any constitution of the world. However, it is not clear whether any constitution-making episode can stand blameless on this count.

Studies on constitutionalism have always been saturated with discussions on how dominant political parties' ideologies influence constitution building—be it a one-party, authoritarian, or a liberal-democratic state. In appraising the one-party dominance over the 1972 constitution-making episode, we must consider the historical contingencies too, characterised by the Liberation War, its antecedents and political aftermath, the need for post-war reconstruction and solidification of a constitutional identity. Some say that the constituent assembly members were elected under the Legal Framework Order (LFO) 1970 of the erstwhile Pakistan, and hence, the constitution they drafted needs to be replaced with a new one. However, it must be noted that following the constitutional subversion facilitated by Ayub Khan, the LFO came as a remarkable political win, posing one concrete opportunity for democratic transition. Therefore, the significance of the moment within which the LFO came into being cannot be overstated.

Pertinently, the Proclamation of Independence (which we all agree to be our first constitution) as adopted on April 10, 1971 (with retrospective effect from the March 26, 1971), the representatives elected in the 1970 elections constituted themselves into a "Constituent Assembly" for drafting a constitution for an independent Bangladesh. Following the war, the Provisional Constitution of Bangladesh Order of 1972 further defined the same elected representatives as the "Constituent Assembly" who, in fact, later drafted and adopted the existing constitution of Bangladesh. While the JNP vows to protect the ideals of shammo, manobik morjada, and shamajik shubichar (that were categorically enshrined in the Proclamation of Independence), the process of adopting a new constitution as laid down in the same document cannot be ignored. If we adopt historiographical lenses, then the immense political significance of 1970 elections and its aftermath can also not be downplayed as that would undermine both the wartime and post-war politico-constitutional consensus. Against this backdrop, the dominance of the Awami League among the elected representatives in the 1970 elections must be seen as rather a historical fact, which cannot be accounted for through myopic presentist lenses.

In any case, constitution-making is invariably an "elitist" chore, as scholars rightly call it "equitable elite bargaining." Whoever makes the constitution at a given point of time are always, invariably, the political elites, impersonating "we, the people" at times through "elections", through "eliciting opinions from the people" or at other times, through "referenda". Now that the JNP is asking for a new constitution, and as the idea of a new constitution seemingly stems from their political vision for a "second republic", won't claims about their dominance, at least in terms of steering the process, be legitimate too?

To simplify matters, some propose having a parliament act as a constituent assembly (put in place through simultaneous elections). Such an arrangement will be all the more "exclusive" and "elitist," potentially rendering the parliament cum constituent assembly authoritarian as virtually subservient-to-none. Similar experience in Venezuela under Nicolás Maduro provides a cautionary tale in this regard. Alternatively, such an arrangement can usher in major political instability and long-term disunity too, particularly amid a rapidly shifting political landscape like ours.

Interestingly, I may say, based on questionable lack of women's representation and lack of an explicit feminist methodological approach to drafting constitutions, that virtually all constitutions are unfairly dominated by men (e.g., one "sex") and their exclusionary ideologies. This argument will not be tenable because of the systemic inequalities that exist and because women as a group do not have the political capital as such. Indeed, for those who are left out of the process, a constitution-making episode will always look "exclusionary," "elitist," and dominated by "others," and because constitutions are only imperfect ideological settlements that only a sustainable culture of democracy can carry forward.

Another key argument is that the existing constitution is "fascistic." Authoritarianism or fascism is an indefensible political vision, a conscious governance choice, and an inanimate constitution cannot be blamed for that unless it explicitly provides for one-party rule or authoritarianism. In many authoritarian or paternalist countries, apparently good reading constitutions are kept simply as tools of window dressing. The democratic subversion in the post-independence Bangladesh was facilitated by a series of constitutional amendments, which irreparably whittled down constitutional checks and balances (e.g. fourth constitutional amendment), subverted the constitutional mandate of democratic rule (e.g. fifth and seventh constitutional amendments), and monopolised a static constitutional narrative and thereby contributed to democratic backsliding (e.g., fifteenth constitutional amendment). But these were but amendments—not the constitution itself. The Awami League government, time and again, co-opted constitution-based rhetorics while remaining authoritarian, but that is a classic example of abusing the constitution, not of "using" one. Instances of abusing the constitution were prominent during other military and non-military regimes too. Indeed, blaming the constitution for explaining the political follies and calling for its replacement without addressing its political understructure is quite enervated and does not align with the vigour and acumen that our youth shows otherwise.

While arguing for a new republic, the JNP often refers to France, which I do not think offers a useful, appropriable example for our context. A cardinal yet uncomplicated rule of adopting constitutional experiences is that we cannot transplant an idea without accounting for the overarching politico-cultural contexts. Indeed, transplanting an 1852 idea into a 2025 postcolonial independent country sounds perversely counterintuitive as there are literally no parallels that we can draw to begin a sensical comparison (other than the fact that France opted for a second republic).

Pertinently, contemporary instances only show how new constitution-making episodes can potentially bring in disunity, violence, and instabilities. We do have the inspiring instance of South Africa, which chose to undo its constitutional order rooted in apartheid, racialised political and governance structure, and explicit electoral discrimination against the non-Whites. What do we seek to undo? Persistent culture of rights violations, authoritarian governance, and democratic deficit? But the existing constitution permits/endorses none of these. Certainly, state powers could be better organised and less concentrated in the existing constitution, but that does not make the entire constitution expendable and does not necessitate making an entirely new one. Finally, any new constitution will not be entirely "new" as such unless we opt for something other than a liberal democratic constitutional order. In fact, some scholars suggest that the very idea of replacing an old constitution with a new one is a "myth" and is only possible in theory. In practice, there will always be constitutional/legal continuity. A so-called new constitution will perhaps only arrange things in a different order, expand on or restrict certain rights, and may dilute some commitments. What troubles me is the idea of going over the entire process all over again, of deepening and entrenching divisions, producing new binaries, reinforcing the existing ones, and so on. And the people who lie in the fringes and the margins will not be able to withstand that.

Psymhe Wadud teaches law at the University of Dhaka and is in charge of Law & Our Rights at The Daily Star.​

 

[Saif]

Advisor Asif Nazrul says it may take 2-3 years to draft a new constitution

Law Advisor Asif Nazrul has said it may take “two to three years” to draft a new constitution, cautioning against the assumption that the July Charter could be adopted swiftly or without significant debate. Speaking at an event in Dhaka on Sunday, he also indicated that the current par

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

Advisor Asif Nazrul says it may take 2-3 years to draft a new constitution
bdnews24.com
Published :
May 11, 2025 20:21
Updated :
May 11, 2025 21:49

Law Advisor Asif Nazrul

Law Advisor Asif Nazrul has said it may take “two to three years” to draft a new constitution, cautioning against the assumption that the July Charter could be adopted swiftly or without significant debate.

Speaking at an event in Dhaka on Sunday, he also indicated that the current parliament will need to continue amending the 1972 Constitution in the interim.

Addressing concerns about what would happen if the new constitution is not completed on time, he said: “If they can’t do it within 90 days, will the existing constitution continue? This is where I object. In our neighbouring countries, we’ve seen it take eight or nine years for a constituent assembly to finalise a new constitution through parliamentary amendments.”

Asif estimated that it could take two to three years to finalise the new constitution. He added that the current parliament will have to make amendments to the 1972 Constitution until a new one is adopted.

He made these remarks on Sunday at an event hosted at the International Mother Language Institute in Dhaka. The discussion was organised by the Citizens' Coalition on the group’s seven-point proposal for constitutional reform.

During his speech, Asif pointed to precedents in Bangladesh’s political history, and said that while drafting a constitution, a parliament cannot devote all of its time to the task. It can only afford to spend two days a week on the constitution, making it an unrealistic expectation for an assembly to draft a new constitution within 90 days.

He also weighed in on the Charter of the July Uprising, saying it is receiving “too much emphasis.”

“We seem to be assuming that everyone will agree on every aspect of the July Charter. That won’t be so easy. Perhaps only the most fundamental parts of it can be retained. This needs careful consideration, though the idea itself is a very good one,” he said.​