[🇧🇩] Everything about our constitution

[Saif]

A multi-racial, multi-cultural, gender sensitive constitution

Representatives from civil society and different organisations yesterday proposed for a multi-racial constitution that will acknowledge multiple languages, cultures, religions, and gender sensitivity.

www.thedailystar.net

A multi-racial, multi-cultural, gender sensitive constitution
Propose civil society, orgs to reform commission

Representatives from civil society and different organisations yesterday proposed for a multi-racial constitution that will acknowledge multiple languages, cultures, religions, and gender sensitivity.

They also suggested allowing people with dual citizenship to run for the position of Member of Parliament but not to hold top-level executive positions.

They placed their proposals before the constitutional reform commission led by Prof Ali Riaz, during a meeting that was part of its ongoing stakeholder consultations. The meeting was held at the National Parliament Building.

Justice Iman Ali, Chief of the Chakma Circle Devasish Roy, and Prof Md Robiul Islam gave recommendations on constitutional reforms.

Talking to The Daily Star, Devasish Roy said he proposed to include indigenous people in the constitution-drafting process to ensure that they, too, feel ownership of the constitution.

He also proposed that the preamble of the constitution should recognise the historical role of the people of different ethnic, religious, linguistic, and other backgrounds, alongside marginalised groups, who have been defending the integrity of the country's territory for centuries and nurturing its biodiversity.

"Some of the fundamental principles should be included as fundamental rights so that they are judicially enforceable, like rights to healthcare, food and nutrition, and quality education," he said.

He also demanded that Article 36 should be amended to acknowledge the need to provide reasonable restrictions to the acquisition of land ownership rights in tribal areas in the CHT and plains.

He recommended incorporating laws like the 1900 Regulations and post-CHT Accord laws of 1998 (on regional and district councils), which protect indigenous people, into the first schedule of the constitution.

Prof Mirza Taslima and Kazi Maruful Islam, representing the University Teachers' Network, also proposed several recommendations.

Contacted, Prof Taslima said she emphasised making the constitution multi-racial and acknowledging diverse languages, cultures, religions, and gender sensitivity in the constitution, while Prof Maruful talked about how the parliament should be.

Roman Uddin and Apon Zahir from the Centre for Governance Studies also presented their proposals.

Speaking to the newspaper, Apon Zahir said they suggested that elections should only be considered legitimate if voter turnout exceeds 51 percent.

He reiterated the proposal to allow individuals with dual citizenship to run for parliament but not hold top executive roles.

They recommended recognising indigenous identities in the constitution.

They also recommended explicitly declaring all forms of discrimination against indigenous peoples, as well as religious and ethnic minorities, illegal.

The organisations and representatives attending the meeting included Akhtar Hossain Khan from the Newspaper Owners' Association of Bangladesh (NOAB); Sanjida Islam Tulee and Mushfiqur Rahman Johan from Mayer Dak; Tamanna Singh Baraik and Puja Rani from the Dalit Women's Forum; Nadira Parveen and Sultan Md Salauddin Siddique from Nagorik Udyog; Joya Shikder and Sudip Kumar Das from Sampurna; Md Junaid and Mohammad Millat Hossain from the Bangladesh Judicial Service Association; and Nazma Akter from the Combined Garment Workers' Federation.

Members of the commission present at the meeting included Prof Sumaiya Khair, Barrister Imran Siddiq, Prof Mohammad Ikramul Haque, Barrister M Moin Alam Firozi, Firoz Ahmed, and Md Mustain Billah.​

 

[Saif]

Democratic rewrite of constitution

THE call for constitutional change in Bangladesh has intensified, not merely for refinement but as a profound demand for democratic renewal. Reforming the 1972 constitution within its current framework overlooks a critical reality: the document is itself embedded with principles that have...

www.newagebd.net

Democratic rewrite of constitution
Kazi ASM Nurul Huda 16 December, 2024, 00:00

THE call for constitutional change in Bangladesh has intensified, not merely for refinement but as a profound demand for democratic renewal. Reforming the 1972 constitution within its current framework overlooks a critical reality: the document is itself embedded with principles that have enabled authoritarianism rather than safeguarded against it, which contradicts the spirit of Bangladesh’s 1971 liberation war. The question now is whether a complete rewrite is necessary to eliminate entrenched authoritarian elements to create a future rooted in the values of equality, human dignity and social justice that inspired the nation’s fight for independence.

This debate on reforming versus rewriting goes beyond semantics; it signifies fundamentally different intentions that shape the extent of change. Reform implies a focused attempt to improve specific areas within an existing framework, with the assumption that the foundation is sound but needs updates to address new or evolving needs. In contrast, rewriting signifies a complete rethinking of the entire structure, often suggesting that the current framework is fundamentally flawed, misaligned or outdated.

The choice to rewrite raises questions of intent and often sparks resistance, as it implies inherent flaws in the original document. Supporters of rewriting Bangladesh’s 1972 constitution argue that certain provisions promote authoritarianism, a drift so deeply embedded that only a full overhaul can eliminate this risk. This stance, while contentious, argues that the current constitution is incompatible with modern democratic ideals and requires a new foundation rather than incremental updates.

In contrast, reformation aims to refine or strengthen the existing framework without replacing it entirely. Proponents of constitutional reformation in Bangladesh argue that careful adjustments to select provisions can mitigate authoritarian risks while preserving the essence of the 1972 Constitution. By respecting the original intentions of its framers, reformation offers continuity and proposes a constructive way forward without discarding the document’s core values.

The debate around the constitution also touches a deeper historical chord. The central question surrounding the 1972 constitution is whether it genuinely embodied the high ideals of equality, human dignity, and social justice set forth in paragraph 12 of the 1971 Proclamation of Bangladesh Independence, issued on April 10, 1971, by the provisional government of Bangladesh in Mujibnagar. Although these values appear in the constitution’s preamble, they were not codified as core state principles. Instead, the constitution adopted four guiding pillars — nationalism, socialism, democracy and secularism — that were not part of the original Proclamation. This substitution, ostensibly to uphold the Liberation War’s spirit, may have instead distorted it. For a document foundational to national identity, it is crucial to question why these ideals were replaced and who stood to benefit from this shift.

The long-term consequences of these decisions have grown clearer over time. By embedding the four pillars as the constitution’s core, the framers arguably created a framework that allowed for authoritarian practices in Bangladesh’s politics over the past 50 years. The extended rule of the Awami League from 2009 to 2024 illustrates how these principles have facilitated power consolidation and created a system that prioritises specific political interests over true democratic representation.

A constitution that repeatedly enables authoritarianism likely has inherent issues. The constitution’s foundational pillars have justified selective policies that favour certain interests, compromise freedom of expression, and restrict economic opportunity. Nationalism, for example, has been invoked to justify policies that limit dissent, while secularism, though intended for harmony, has restricted political expression. Similarly, socialism, meant to promote equality, has sometimes justified restrictive economic policies. These foundational principles have promoted an environment where authoritarianism can take root and thrive.

When the foundational principles themselves allow authoritarian drift, reform alone is unlikely to deliver the transformative change that Bangladesh needs. Isolated amendments might temporarily curb authoritarian tendencies but cannot reshape a framework that ultimately prioritises certain interests over democratic will. Even an extensively revised 1972 constitution would still carry the weight of principles misaligned with democratic ideals. Under these circumstances, reform risks becoming a superficial fix when a fundamental shift is essential. The entrenched values that permeate and compromise the entire document suggest that only a comprehensive rewrite could enable the constitution to authentically reflect the original ideals of the liberation war, ideals that serve neither any particular person’s interest nor any party’s ideology.

Though rewriting a constitution is a significant undertaking requiring thorough justification, the way the 1972 constitution embeds elements that diverge from the Liberation War’s spirit — elements that cater to specific interests over a genuinely inclusive national ethos — suggests that rewriting may be more appropriate than simple or substantial reformation. A rewritten constitution could better align with the ideals of the 1971 Proclamation and more effectively support democratic governance.

What would a rewrite of the constitution entail, and why is it necessary? A comprehensive constitutional rewrite would mean re-examining each element of the document to build a democratic framework from the ground up. This new constitution would need to incorporate the ideals of equality, human dignity, and social justice that inspired the Liberation War and implement safeguards to prevent power consolidation. By starting anew, Bangladesh could craft a constitutional framework that genuinely respects the aspirations of its people rather than historical political interests.

A new constitution would also serve as a symbolic reaffirmation of the liberation war’s values, honouring those who sacrificed for these ideals. This symbolic aspect is no less important than the legal ramifications, as it represents a collective reimagining of national identity and purpose.

Creating a new constitution, however, is not simple. It requires broad consensus, thoughtful debate, and transparency involving diverse voices across Bangladeshi society to ensure that the new document reflects the will of the people rather than a single political ideology or interest. In this way, a new constitution could serve as a bulwark against the cycle of authoritarian governance that has plagued Bangladesh’s history.

While it’s true that a constitution alone, however perfect it is, cannot guarantee democracy, it does provide the essential framework upon which democratic culture and public commitment to democratic principles can grow. Some might argue that rewriting Bangladesh’s constitution risks greater instability in an already politically volatile nation. However, much of the current instability stems from authoritarian abuses embedded in the existing constitutional structure. A new constitution, with strong democratic checks and balances, could actually serve as a stabilising force by dismantling mechanisms that allow power consolidation and political centralization. This foundational change would give Bangladesh a chance to build a political environment rooted in democratic integrity. It would create the essential space for political culture, education, and public awareness to flourish around democratic values instead of being eroded by partisan interests.

In fine, the case for a new constitution in Bangladesh is not merely about legal reform but about reimagining the nation’s political identity. Crafting a document that embodies the genuine spirit of the liberation war and the principles of a democratic society would pave the way towards a future free from authoritarianism. The question, then, is no longer merely whether the constitution needs reform but rather how it should be rewritten to lay the foundation for a genuinely democratic Bangladesh and who is entitled to undertake this task.

Kazi ASM Nurul Huda is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Dhaka. He holds a PhD in philosophy from the University of Oklahoma, USA.​

 

[Saif]

Reviving caretaker govt system reflects people’s expectations: Shahdeen Malik

'It will pave the way for a more democratic Bangladesh,' said the constitution expert

www.thedailystar.net

Reviving caretaker govt system reflects people’s expectations: Shahdeen Malik

Eminent jurist Shahdeen Malik today said reviving the caretaker government system certainly reflects people's expectations.

"It will pave the way for a more democratic Bangladesh," said the constitution expert in his impromptu reaction to The Daily Star after a High Court verdict on the 15th amendment of the constitution.

The HC today scrapped a part of the constitution's 15th amendment that cancelled the provision of the non-party caretaker government system and restored the provision of the referendum for bringing any amendment to the constitution.

The abolition of the non-party caretaker government system is void and unconstitutional as it destroyed democracy, free and fair elections, and the independence of judiciary which are the basic structures of the constitution, the court said.

Delivering the verdict on two separate writ petitions, the HC also struck down articles 7(A) and 7(B) of the Constitution, declaring them void and unconstitutional.

"Bringing back the provision for referendum is also certainly a welcome decision," said Shahdeen.

"Articles 7(A) and 7(B) were in conflict with the constitution, so it was expected that these would be declared unconstitutional," he added.


Article 7(A) of the Constitution pertained to the use of force and other unconstitutional means to "abrogate, repeal or suspend" the Constitution or any of its articles.

Article 7(B) makes certain parts of the Constitution unamendable "by way of insertion, modification, substitution, repeal or by any other means".

The HC declared unconstitutional the parts of the 15th Amendment Act, which scrapped the 13th amendment that had introduced the non-party caretaker government system in 1996, and brought significant changes to the charter.

In the verdict, the HC did not interfere in the provisions of the 15th Amendment Act which deals with the state principles including secularism, socialism, state region, nationalism, father of the nation and the number of reserved seats for women in parliament, saying that the future governments will decide these issues.

The 15th Amendment was passed in the parliament in 2011.​

 

[Saif]

Scrapping caretaker government system unconstitutional: HC

HC also restored provision for referendums for constitutional amendments; repealed articles 7A, 7B; upheld state principles

www.thedailystar.net

Scrapping caretaker government system unconstitutional: HC

HC also restored provision for referendums for constitutional amendments; repealed articles 7A, 7B; upheld state principles

The High Court today scrapped a part of the constitution's 15th amendment that cancelled the provision of the non-party caretaker government system and restored the provision of the referendum for bringing any amendment to the constitution.

The abolition of the non-party caretaker government system is void and unconstitutional as the abolition has destroyed democracy, free and fair elections, independence of judiciary which are the basic structures of the Constitution, the court said.

Delivering verdict on two separate writ petitions, the HC also struck down articles 7 (A) and 7 (B) of the Constitution, declaring them void and unconstitutional.

Article 7 (A) of the Bangladesh Constitution pertained to the use of force and other unconstitutional means to "abrogate, repeal or suspend" the Constitutions or any of its articles.

Article 7 (B) makes certain parts of the Constitution unamendable "by way of insertion, modification, substitution, repeal or by any other means".

The HC declared unconstitutional the parts of the 15th Amendment Act, which scrapped the 13th amendment that had introduced the non-party caretaker government system in 1996, and brought significant changes to the charter.

In the verdict, the HC did not interfere in the provisions of the 15th Amendment Act which deals with the state principles including the secularism, socialism, state region, nationalism, father of the nation and number of reserved seats for women in parliament, saying that the future governments will take the decision about these issues.

The court also clarified the current interim government is not a caretaker government.

It said the present government government is totally different as it was formed by the president after he sought the opinion of the Appellate Division of Supreme Court under article 106 of the constitution.

Article 106 says, "If at any time it appears to the President that a question of law has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to the Appellate Division for consideration and the division may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report its opinion thereon to the President."

The High Court bench of Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Debasish Roy Chowdhury delivered the verdict following two separate writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of the 15th amendment to the constitution.

On December 5, the bench fixed today as the date for the announcement of the judgement after concluding hearings on the petitions.

The court has heard arguments on the petitions for 12 working days. One of the writ petitions was filed by Mofazzal Hossain, a freedom fighter from Narayanpara, Naogaon.

On October 19, the HC bench led by Justice Farah Mahbub issued a rule asking the government to explain why the Constitution (15th Amendment) Act, 2011, should not be declared unconstitutional. It also questioned why actions taken under the amendment should not be invalidated.

On August 19, another HC bench led by Justice Naima Haider, who is currently on leave, issued a similar rule following a writ petition filed by five citizens.

The petitioners included – Badiul Alam Majumdar, secretary of Shushashoner Jonno Nagorik, along with Tofail Ahmed, M Hafizuddin Khan, Md Jobirul Hoque Bhuiyan, and Zahrah Rahman. The petitioners, submitting their case as a public interest litigation, argued that the abolition of the non-party caretaker government system through the 15th amendment led to three consecutive disputed elections in 2014, 2018, and 2024.

Apart from the writ petitioners and the state, few political parties, including BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami and some SC lawyers have placed arguments before the HC against the 15th amendment and in favour of the caretaker government system.​

 

[Saif]

তত্ত্বাবধায়ক সরকারব্যবস্থা বিলুপ্তির বিধান বাতিল করলেন হাইকোর্ট

 

[Saif]

Restoration of caretaker system to be proposed

The restoration of the caretaker government and the introduction of a bicameral system in parliament will be among the recommendations to be proposed by the Constitution Reform Commission.

www.thedailystar.net

Restoration of caretaker system to be proposed
Constitution reform commission likely to submit report Jan 7

It is important to follow due process in consultation with the constitution in each step towards achieving reforms. FILE PHOTO: STAR
The restoration of the caretaker government and the introduction of a bicameral system in parliament will be among the recommendations to be proposed by the Constitution Reform Commission.

The commission, led by political scientist Ali Riaz, is likely to recommend the inclusion of equality, human dignity, and social justice in the preamble to the constitution.

Its proposal, which is currently being prepared along with the rationale, is scheduled to submit its recommendations by January 7.

"I would say the biggest consensus we received is on the caretaker government. If I were to say 100 percent, it would not be an exaggeration," Riaz told The Daily Star.

Additionally, the commission will propose a two-term limit for the office and curbing the prime minister's absolute power.

It will also recommend establishing a balance of power between the prime minister and the president.

The commission plans to strengthen the parliamentary standing committees to enhance their ability to monitor and hold the government and the prime minister accountable.

It will also recommend repealing Article 70 of the constitution.

Asked whether the commission is amending or rewriting the constitution, Riaz clarified that it is not drafting a new constitution but rather compiling recommendations so that the constitution would guarantee that no one can snatch the voting rights of the masses and no potential autocrat can grab power.

So far, the commission has received proposals from 28 political entities, including 25 political parties and three alliances.

It has also held discussions with 43 organisations, including civil society groups, some of which have provided written submissions.

Moreover, the commission consulted seven constitutional experts and sought opinions from 27 prominent citizens.

It also took opinions from 10 youths who contributed songs, poems and graffiti during the July uprising. They were not associated with the Student Against Discrimination movement or the Jatiya Nagorik Committee.

The commission has undertaken two broader initiatives.

Riaz said, "First, we collected public opinions through our website, receiving 50,573 responses. While these inputs were helpful, they had limitations due to the lack of demographic information about the respondents, such as age, gender, location or profession, which weakened their scientific credibility."

To address this, the commission collaborated with the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics to conduct a household survey using a methodologically sound and scientifically rigorous process.

"This survey collected 45,925 opinions, which we are now analysing. This approach ensured a more representative and inclusive understanding of public sentiment," Riaz added.

Thus far, the commission has conducted 46 meetings: 23 for consultations and 23 among its members.

"Through these efforts, we have extensively and inclusively gathered opinions and analysed 121 countries' constitutions -- we are working toward making well-informed recommendations," Riaz also said.​

 

[Saif]

‘We’re not drafting constitution’

Ali Riaz, a distinguished Bangladeshi-American political scientist and acclaimed author heading the constitution reform commission, sat down with Star to inform on the commission’s progress and some of the key consensuses obtained.

www.thedailystar.net

‘We’re not drafting constitution’
Says Ali Riaz

Ali Riaz, a distinguished Bangladeshi-American political scientist and acclaimed author heading the constitution reform commission, sat down with Star to inform on the commission's progress and some of the key consensuses obtained.


DS: What is the progress of the commission?

AR: We have been entrusted with two main tasks: one is to review the existing constitution and the other is to propose recommendations. The foundation of the recommendations is to make the constitution more democratic, ensure the participation of the people and reform it in a way that prevents the possibility of autocratic rule in the future.

In my opinion, it has essentially been rewritten twice: once through the Fourth Amendment and again through the Fifteenth Amendment. I emphasise the notion of "rewriting" the constitution because, with the Fourth Amendment, the character of the state, the rights of its citizens and the structure of power were fundamentally altered.

The same fundamental changes were made through the Fifteenth Amendment. The core character of the constitution was altered and the rights of the people were not adequately protected. Essentially, this means the constitution was rewritten.

In reviewing Bangladesh's constitution, we also studied the constitutions of 121 countries to compare and analyse the unique provisions of our constitution and identify similarities or differences with other countries.

For example, Bangladesh's constitution includes provisions like displaying Bangabandhu's portrait in government offices and incorporating the Declaration of Independence. Our researchers analysed these aspects thoroughly.

This analysis involved two approaches. First, we examined how the constitution evolved into its current form. Second, we are focused on what the commission will propose.

I believe the commission's recommendations will not be the final word as the constitution is a political document that reflects the people's aspirations and provides guidelines for the state.

To develop these recommendations, we engaged with the largest stakeholders: the people. This also involves discussions with political parties, civil society groups, professional bodies and eminent individuals.

DS: What are the key points of consensus among stakeholders, or what proposals is the commission planning to recommend?

AR: I won't say what we will propose but I can share the areas where I have observed significant consensus. The most prominent consensus I have seen is that people want a participatory government system that ensures voting rights. They want these rights to be constitutionally protected so no one can undermine or take them away.

There is also a strong desire to prevent excessive concentration of power in the hands of a single individual.

As for solutions, there are various opinions. Some emphasise the importance of balancing power, while others point out that the prime minister has become overly powerful due to the constitution.

To address this, it has been suggested to empower and strengthen parliamentary standing committees to prevent the misuse of power.

Additionally, some stakeholders believe the prime minister should not hold multiple positions to avoid accumulating excessive authority.

DS: Many people have discussed the idea of a bicameral parliamentary system. Is the commission planning to propose it?

AR: A significant number of stakeholders have proposed a bicameral parliamentary system. Their reasoning is rooted in a desire to decentralise power, believing that such a system could help prevent the misuse of authority.

The proposals for a bicameral system and limiting the prime minister's tenure to a maximum of two terms reflect the people's aspirations to curb the concentration of power, establish constitutional safeguards against autocracy and create institutions that protect their rights.

Ultimately, we will make recommendations based on the political and cultural context, the aspirations of the Bangladeshi people and the political behaviour of the country.

DS: Have you received proposals for amending or rewriting the constitution? What is the commission planning to recommend: amend or rewrite?

AR: I would suggest not framing it that way. First of all, we are not drafting the constitution. Our role is to present what our stakeholders and analyses have indicated needs change.

How these changes will be implemented is a political process and is to be carried out by the political parties that govern the country.

They will draft the constitution, consulting stakeholders in their ways. We are not specifically proposing amendments or a complete rewriting of the constitution.

What we are saying is that, for a democratic Bangladesh, certain principles and provisions need to be incorporated into the constitution.

Whether this is done through political consensus or an electoral process is up to the political parties.

DS: The president's role has largely been symbolic. Did the stakeholders propose increasing the president's powers? Will the commission recommend balancing the powers of the president and the prime minister?

AR: This issue was raised significantly. It came up in discussions about reducing the absolute power of the prime minister.

One suggested approach is to grant more powers to the president. However, there are both positive and negative aspects to this.

As a political science teacher, I see two potential approaches. One is vertical power distribution: granting some power to the president (at the top) and empowering the people (at the bottom) by ensuring their voting rights.

The focus should be on distributing power in a way that ensures the prime minister is accountable not only to the people but also to the system itself.

To achieve this, we need robust institutions. Strengthening parliamentary standing committees is essential, as they can monitor not just the prime minister but the entire government.

Additionally, we need constitutional institutions such as a stronger National Human Rights Commission to protect human rights and a more effective Anti-Corruption Commission to combat corruption.

We are considering the broader picture. Distributing power alone will not solve everything; institutional reforms are critical for balancing power.

DS: Some have proposed the idea of a second republic, inspired by the spirit of the July Uprising, similar to how the constitution reflects the spirit of the Liberation War. Is the commission planning to recommend including this in the constitution?

AR: Some stakeholders have proposed the inclusion of a second republic. However, as a commission, it is not our responsibility to decide on this matter. This is a political decision.

DS: Will the commission propose changes to the preamble of the constitution?

AR: The most important aspect of the preamble is its foundation. We believe the foundation lies in the Declaration of Independence during the Liberation War, which emphasised equality, human dignity and social justice. These ideals are the foundation of our state.

This foundation was not created in a single day or suddenly on April 10, 1971. It emerged from the long struggles of the Bangladeshi people: the anti-British movement, the struggle against Pakistan and the movements of peasants and labourers. These aspirations must be included in the preamble.

Unfortunately, these ideals were not fully reflected in the constitution of 1972, even though they were part of the pledges made during our independence.

The state is essentially [based on] a social agreement. We created this agreement to build a state that ensures equality, human dignity and social justice.

It won't happen overnight, but these foundational principles are what we aim to propose for inclusion in the preamble of the Constitution.

DS: Will the commission recommend the caretaker government system?

AR: We did not encounter any dissenting views regarding the caretaker government. Most stakeholders expressed their support for reinstating the caretaker government system.

DS: Is the commission hopeful that its proposals will be reflected in the constitution?

AR: We are hopeful because this stage has been reached through an unprecedented mass uprising. History will not chart our path, but can we ignore the bloodshed, the sacrifices of lives and the pain of those who are still suffering?

These sacrifices must have meant something and they give us hope.

DS: Compiling these extensive proposals, analysing them and preparing recommendations is a long and rigorous process. Do you think you will be able to complete it within the stipulated timeframe of January 7?

AR: We are hopeful for two reasons. First, we have received significant support from the people, institutions, political parties and researchers. This support gives us confidence that we will be able to submit our draft proposals within the stipulated timeframe.​

 

[Saif]

1972 ‘Mujibist’ constitution will be buried

The “Mujibist” constitution of 1972 will become invalid through the proclamation of the July Revolution by the Anti-discrimination Students Movement on December 31, leaders of the platform said yesterday.

www.thedailystar.net

1972 ‘Mujibist’ constitution will be buried

Photo: Collected

The "Mujibist" constitution of 1972 will become invalid through the proclamation of the July Revolution by the Anti-discrimination Students Movement on December 31, leaders of the platform said yesterday.

"From the very place where the one-point movement was declared, the grave of the Mujibist 1972 constitution will be dug -- we want the Mujibist constitution to be buried," Hasnat Abdullah, convener of the platform, told a press briefing at its central office in the capital's Banglamotor.

The platform is all set to unveil the proclamation of the July Revolution on December 31 at 3:00pm at the Central Shaheed Minar.

"The proclamation will clarify how the Mujibist constitution has destroyed the aspirations of the people and precisely how we intend to replace it." Hasnat Abdullah— Convener of Anti-discrimination Students Movement.

Hasnat further said that the proclamation should have been made on August 5 after the fall of the Awami League government.

"Better late than never. The delay has allowed pro-fascist forces to continue conspiring from abroad and questioning the legitimacy of the revolution through the media, intellectual circles and various other platforms."

These efforts undermine the sacrifice of more than 2,000 martyrs and more than 20,000 injured, he said.

"We hope that the proclamation will make the Nazi-like Awami League irrelevant in Bangladesh."

The proclamation will outline the dreams, aspirations, intentions, goals and manifesto for the future of Bangladesh, he mentioned.

"It belongs to no specific party or class. Over the course of history, our dreams have been betrayed at various levels. Through this proclamation, we aim to ensure that such deprivation does not recur."

The foundational principles of the 1972 constitution facilitated Indian aggression, Hasnat said.

"The proclamation will clarify how the Mujibist constitution has destroyed the aspirations of the people and precisely how we intend to replace it," he added.

A draft of the proclamation has already been prepared by taking opinions from individuals from various political ideologies, religions and age groups who participated directly in the revolution, said Sarjis Alam, former coordinator of the student platform and currently the chief organiser of the Jatiya Nagorik Committee.

"We believe that the way the revolution united all anti-fascist forces, this proclamation will contain the hopes and aspirations of everyone -- we have crossed only the first phase of the revolution," he added.

Abdul Hannan Masud, the chief organiser of the student platform, said it is the government's responsibility to incorporate the proclamation into the constitution and establish the Second Republic.

Hasnat, however, said the concept of a Second Republic is a legal matter. "We are not delving into those issues right now," he said.

Meanwhile, Chief Adviser's Press Secretary Shafiqul Alam said the government is not connected with the initiative by the student platform to declare the July mass uprising a revolution.

"This is a private initiative -- we are treating it as a private matter. It is not related to the government, and there is no involvement of the government," he said at a press briefing outside the state guesthouse Jamuna.

Meanwhile, Deputy Press Secretary Mohammad Abul Kalam Azad Majumder said, "Until the declaration is made, it will not be clear to us. Until then, we won't be able to clarify it to you."​

 

[Saif]

Changes needed to ensure voting rights, freedom of speech, justice: Ali Riaz

The Constitution Reform Commission is planning to place recommendations for changes in line with the people’s aspirations for democracy in every sphere of the state, freedom of speech, voting rights and independent judiciary.

www.newagebd.net

Changes needed to ensure voting rights, freedom of speech, justice: Ali Riaz
Sadiqur Rahman 31 December, 2024, 01:31

Ali Riaz

The Constitution Reform Commission is planning to place recommendations for changes in line with the people’s aspirations for democracy in every sphere of the state, freedom of speech, voting rights and independent judiciary.

‘The Constitution of Bangladesh needs to be structured in a way that protects the people’s democratic rights, ensures the accountability of those in power and empowers governance, particularly the local government system, to effectively represent the people,’ the reform commission chief, Ali Riaz, said in an interview with New Age recently.

He said that they would made recommendations upholding the spirits of the student-led mass uprising against discrimination that ousted the authoritarian regime of Sheikh Hasina, who fled to India on August 5.

About the necessity of the formation of the reform commission, Riaz, a distinguished professor at the politics and government department of the Illinois State University in the United States, said that the reform of the constitution had become imperative even before the July uprising.

‘Over the past 52 years, the Bangladesh Constitution has not only strayed from the fundamental principles of the War of Independence, but has also evolved into an instrument for concentrating power in a few, constituting the erosion of people’s rights and failing to represent their aspirations,’ observed Riaz. The reform commission, formed on October 7, is going to submit its draft recommendations to the chief adviser on January 7.

Riaz believes that the 1971 liberation war was the culmination of a long struggle by the people of this land for having a state that would ensure equality, human dignity and social justice.

The July uprising reflected the people’s will for a democratic state that protects its citizens and delivers equality, human dignity and social justice.

This necessitated the formation of the reform commission to recommend the incorporation of these ideals into the constitution.

Riaz, however, said that the reform commission was not drafting a new constitution.

He said, ‘The reform commission’s terms of reference are clear: to review the existing constitution and recommend changes to transform the state into a truly democratic entity.’

Mentioning the major flaws in the existing constitution, Riaz observed that Bangladesh constitution, drafted and approved in 1972, has been amended 17 times and some for only individual benefits or political expediency.

These changes often lacked vision and prioritised the political parties’ quest for power, he said.

He said that the constituent assembly that drafted and approved the constitution in 1971 consisted mostly of one political party and there was no public referendum to reflect the will of the people who fought in 1971.

Saying that Bangladesh turned into a one-party state in 1975, he observed that mechanisms for accountability, particularly for the prime minister, were absent in the constitution that led to authoritarian tendencies.

‘Certain amendments, such as the 15th amendment, further complicated matters by making a third of the constitution unamendable, exceeding the authority of parliament,’ Riaz said.

He added that the contradiction between the provisions for an independent judiciary and subordinate courts under the executive authority was another significant flaw in the existing constitution.

‘The constitution needs to align with the principles of equality, human dignity and social justice for which the people fought in 1971. The proclamation of independence in 1971, the first de facto constitution of Bangladesh, emphasised these principles, but those were omitted in the subsequent draft,’ he said.

Replying to a question whether the political parties would accept the reform commission’s recommendations, he answered, ‘That will be a political process between the interim government and the political parties. What I can tell you is that the recommendations we are going to propose reflect the views of the political parties, civil society, constitutional experts and most importantly the common people.’

According to him, the reform commission is going to present recommendations that would reflect input from political parties, civil society, constitutional experts and nearly 1,00,000 people who participated in the process through online comments and surveys.

‘Although accommodating all views is impossible, the overarching consensus on key issues forms the basis of the recommendations,’ he said.

Riaz believes that the July uprising reiterated the demand for a country where voices are heard, representatives are chosen freely and governance is free from engineered elections.

He said that reforming the electoral system, particularly the composition of the election commission and laws governing elections, was vital.

While the commission has not been tasked with drafting the electoral process, its recommendations would aim to give some observations on political reforms and facilitate dialogue and build consensus among key stakeholders, including the people and political parties, Riaz said.

He said that the reform commission’s focus was on ensuring democratic institutions that are robust and accountable.

The recommendations would also aim to create safeguards against autocracy through institutional reforms and accountability mechanisms.

‘However, sustaining democracy requires political will and continuous effort from both the people and political parties, as democracy is an everyday struggle,’ Riaz added.​

 

[Saif]

The Key Reform to Shield Bangladesh from the Grip of Power Abuse

The Constitution of Bangladesh has become a joke. The Interim Government can try to fix it through the Constitutional Commission but unless we address the key issue, all these changes and reforms (including all the legal and the administrative ones) will be for naught. For example, consider the Co

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

The Key Reform to Shield Bangladesh from the Grip of Power Abuse
Kazi Rahman
Published :
Jan 01, 2025 02:32
Updated :
Jan 01, 2025 02:32

The Constitution of Bangladesh has become a joke. The Interim Government can try to fix it through the Constitutional Commission but unless we address the key issue, all these changes and reforms (including all the legal and the administrative ones) will be for naught.

For example, consider the Constitutional provisions for the Caretaker Government. It was one of the most innovative and forward-thinking provisions of the Constitution, but it was dismantled by the Executive at the first opportunity. Some key benefits ensured by the Caretaker Government were that elections were relatively free and fair, and there was a peaceful transition of power. It also meant that the leadership changed hands, which was not seen very favourably by our leaders. I am positive that if anyone else were in the shoes of our leaders, she would have ditched those provisions in the blink of an eye because it challenged her authority and forced her to be vulnerable by forsaking her power.

The July Revolution that forced Hasina to abdicate her position and flee the country was completely unexpected. Had the army not stood by the side of the people, Bangladesh could have so easily turned into the Syria of the subcontinent. That would have been an unmitigated disaster for everyone in Bangladesh, except for the Awami League and its supporters. For better or worse, the Government fell, and we have a new Interim Government.

There are lots of things on the Interim Government’s plate. They have done commendable work stabilising the economy and improving law and order. They have also instituted some laudable reforms. My only concern is that all their hard work will be for naught if they are unable to create structures and systems which would prevent these reforms from being whittled away by the wave of the proverbial wand by the next Government in power. So, what can the Interim Government do to ensure that the blood of our young ones is not spilt in vain?

First, there is no rush. If history has taught us anything there is no need to rush into an election. Bangladesh has been independent for over 50 years. There is no existential threat to Bangladesh, so why the rush? The corruption and degeneracy of the previous Government were like a fungus, we only see the rotting fruits – the caps and the gills. The mycelial network of partisanship and cronyism permeates through every level of state and non-state institutions. These networks need to be identified and neutralised, which could take some time. If these are left untreated, it is only a matter of time before they grow back and reestablish the infestation.

Secondly, we need to think about creating a legal framework for the country that would make it enormously difficult for any Government to co-opt all organs of state and treat the country like their “baaper property”. This is crucial because, without such protections, any reform that is introduced by the Interim Government will not survive the next election. As soon as a new Government comes to power, they will dismantle all the reforms and pass laws that would confer unchecked power to them. History will repeat itself.

So how can we prevent the next Government, or any Government in the future, from becoming a leviathan that could eviscerate our country? The fundamental issue at the heart of this debate is the question of power. Power is critical for a government to do their job. But too much power in the hands of few people is dangerous for all, as “power tends to corrupt”. For example, look at what happened in 1973. The Awami League had absolute power in Bangladesh, yet it would not satisfy their power lust. They wanted more.

To protect the people from the rise of fascists in the future – one thing that this Government must ensure is Separation of Power.

Right now, power is too concentrated in the hands of the Prime Minister. In fact, if you look at the debates of the Constituent Assembly – the concentration of power was a major cause of friction. In fact, Dr Kamal Hossain argued that the “context” of 1972 was different from 1956 (Ayub Government) and that Bangabandhu would never abuse the power that was granted to the position of the Prime Minister. If Dr Hossain only had a crystal ball.

Time and time again, history has proven that power tends to corrupt – even the best of us. Our history over the last 50 years is a testament to the depravity that can arise when too much power rests in the hands of few people. If we can ensure that power is distributed across a range of people and institutions, it will be much harder for any Government in the future to entertain any hidden fascist fantasies.

There are several options that are available to us, each with its pros and cons. We need to assess the implications of the path we take because that can shape the course that Bangladesh takes over the next 100 years.

Option 1: Bicameral Parliament

We can break the Parliament into an upper house and a lower house. We can opt for the US system – whereby we have both the houses elected. The elections are staggered, and you need to ensure that some staggered process to maintain continuity. We could also opt for the UK model, or the Indian model. Each option has its advantages and disadvantages.

This might not be practical for Bangladesh because we don’t really have a landed gentry or federal structure of states. If we opt for this, then federalism might be a course that we have to consider, which would involve revamping the entire governmental framework. To be honest, the cost and complexity associated with introducing a bicameral system may be prohibitive for Bangladesh. Furthermore, if the Executive continues as members of the Parliament – this would not really solve the power issue because the Parliament would remain an extension of the Executive. We need to extricate the Executive from the Parliament, to enable Parliament to be free from the direct influence of the Executive.

Option 2: Separate all three organs of Power

This option would involve separating the Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary – as much as possible. The function of the Parliament is to debate laws and make laws. Members of Parliament should be entitled to discuss and debate the pros and cons of laws, and then they can decide to vote on bills to make them into laws. Our laws are hopelessly out of date. We still have valid laws from the nineteenth century that were used by the British to extract resources from us. It is high time that we update these laws and try to come up with better laws that are more suitable for a growing economy in the twenty-first century. To ensure that the Parliament does not go overboard, we need to ensure that they need the consent of the Executive to enact laws.

The Executive must be extricated from the Parliament. Bangladesh is a LDC with a lot of challenges, the Executive needs a lot of resources and time to develop creative solutions for these challenges. They do not have to worry about attending the Parliament and debating the nuances of law. They can focus on implementing the laws. They can go to their ministries and work with the administration to develop Bangladesh within the legal framework created by the Parliament. They can produce by-laws and orders but those would be limited in scope and people could challenge their validity if anyone suspects that the Executive was acting ultra vires. The Ministers are men/women of action. They are concerned with the development of Bangladesh and helping their constituency when possible. They should not have to be tied up in a climate-controlled room discussing the implications of new laws and regulations or rubber-stamping laws along party lines.

The Judiciary needs only focus on interpreting the laws. They should not have to worry about upsetting any party or waiting for the Ministry of Law to write legal opinions for them. Their selection procedure – particularly, for the Supreme Court – can probably be handled by the Parliament and the Executive, jointly. There are a few things that need to be incorporated in managing the judiciary – such as independence from interference by the executive in relation to the selection, promotion, transfer and resignation of judges. The process needs to be clarified, codified and transparent. Judges should seek to be impartial arbiters of disputes. They need not coddle the Executive or the administration. Their job is to ensure that the rights of the governed and the Government are protected and that everyone gets a fair hearing. Otherwise, they will be seen as the tamed tiger of the Government, unleashed on people to serve the will of the leviathan.

Finally, to strengthen independence and reduce opportunities for abuse by all branches of the Government, we should also introduce some extra obligations on everyone in the Government. These could include: a legally binding code of ethics; an obligation to publicly disclose tax submissions and their asset holding; implementing concrete guidance for anyone in power to recuse from any positions or issues if there is a conflict of interest; etc. We also need to figure out how these provisions can be implemented and the implications of non-adherence. If members of the branches of the Government can ignore these provisions with impunity, it will only encourage them to abuse their positions and undermine the rights of the People.

The objective here is to distribute the power for governing Bangladesh and make sure that improprieties are more difficult to hide for people in positions of power. By distributing power among all branches of the Government, it would be extremely difficult for one branch to steam-roll its decisions over the others. Obligations to disclose one’s financial holdings would make them very cautious about amassing wealth, especially under their names or the names of connected persons, because it would raise awkward questions about the source of the newfound wealth. There are only so many rich family members around from whom you can inherit wealth. Separation of power could have two consequences: deadlock or cooperation. Neither of these is bad per se.

If there is a deadlock, the Executive could still function through orders and by-laws. However, people in power would be unlikely to overtly abuse their positions because they would always be mindful that they might not be in power after the next election cycle.

Since laws would not be enacted without the agreement of the Parliament and the Executive, they might choose to work together and come up with better laws. Since the leader of the Executive would need the support of the leader of the Parliament, the collaboration could keep each other in check.

To ensure that a single party does not co-opt both branches of the Government, it may be useful to have two sets of elections. One for the President – and the Executive. The other is for the Parliament. One can be the President for a four-year term and a Member of Parliament for a four-year term. However, by staggering the election you can ensure no single party can control both the branches for more than 2 years. If any party decides to abuse their position, the people can kick them out from the Legislature or the Executive (depending on the election cycle) significantly curtailing the power of the ruling party.

There is a possibility that they can collude and lead to the creation of a new fascist regime – but that would be much harder than under the current framework. Plus, it would be for two years max. If we can manage to create an independent judiciary, they could hold the fort until the next election cycle. Further details need to be worked out, but if we do not address these issues properly then we will have to pour out on the streets again against a new fascist regime in 20 years.

There are many reforms that we need to consider. But if we want to make any of them last, we must reform the issue of how power is distributed among the different branches of the Government. As I have said, there are pros and cons to this approach, but one undeniable advantage of this is that it will make it nigh impossible for future leaders to lean into their fascist tendencies. These reforms are just the beginning.

For Bangladesh to grow and prosper in the future we may have to consider curtailing the Government’s influence over institutions such as the Bangladesh Bank and make them independent. But that is a discussion for another day. Right now, we need to have a commission to figure out how we can break the monopoly on power.

The author is Business and Entrepreneurship Expert. He is currently working with CaST Network Ltd.​