[🇧🇩] Proportional Representation System---Good or Bad.

[Saif]

Date of Event: Jul 4, 2025

Source : https://www.thedailystar.net/news/bangladesh/politics/news/pr-system-threat-democracy-says-rizvi-3931816

‘PR system a threat to democracy’ - Says Rizvi
Rizvi criticizes PR system in elections

BNP Senior Joint Secretary General Ruhul Kabir Rizvi yesterday said local leadership will not develop if elections are held under the Proportional Representation (PR) system.

"If elections are held under the PR system, the preferred candidate in the parliamentary constituency will not be able to become an MP. People will not be able to vote for their preferred candidate," he said at a programme in Rangpur.

Rizvi said under the PR system, the party, not the people, will choose MPs, which will pave the way for authoritarianism.

"Today, various things are being brought forward -- proportional voting. Why proportional voting? This will block the path to developing local leadership. If someone becomes a leader by staying in an area for a long time and maintaining contact with the people, even they could be excluded based on party decisions. This will lead further toward authoritarian rule," he said.

Meanwhile, Australian High Commissioner to Bangladesh Susan Ryle has said her country is keen to support Bangladesh in holding a free and fair national election.

"There has been discussion on the election in Bangladesh with importance. Australia is providing significant assistance in this regard, particularly to the Election Commission, and they are continuing with that support," said BNP Standing Committee member Amir Khosru Mahmud Chowdhury.

Khosru made the remarks while briefing reporters after Australian High Commissioner Susan Ryle paid a courtesy call on BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir.

Responding to a journalist's question, the BNP leader said voter turnout in the upcoming national polls will be very good, and that people will go to polling centres with great enthusiasm and interest.

"Male and female voters of all ages will participate, and there will be a good election. A government will be elected via a neutral and acceptable election. This will help advance the democratic transition," he said.​

 

[Saif]

Divisions appear to challenge consensus

Differing positions of major political parties on proportional representation in Jatiya Sangsad and the appointment of chief adviser to the election-time caretaker government are expected to stay as challenges in the upcoming dialogue sessions of the National Consensus Commission.

www.newagebd.net

Divisions appear to challenge consensus
Sadiqur Rahman 05 July, 2025, 00:43

File photo

Differing positions of major political parties on proportional representation in Jatiya Sangsad and the appointment of chief adviser to the election-time caretaker government are expected to stay as challenges in the upcoming dialogue sessions of the National Consensus Commission.

Although previous consensus dialogue sessions hosted by the Constitution Reform Commission and the NCC resulted in a broad agreement on introducing a bicameral parliament, the parties remain split into two camps on how to establish such a parliament.

The Bangladesh Nationalist Party has supported the CRC-proposed bicameral Jatiya Sangsad but recommended a first-past-the-post or direct election system for the lower house and a secured-seats-based proportional representation system for the upper house.Bangladesh-themed souvenirs

Conversely, the Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, Islami Andolan Bangladesh, and several other parties have opted for proportional representation in both houses based on vote shares obtained in the election.

While NCC vice-chair Professor Ali Riaz noted that over two-thirds of the parties supported the bicameral parliament proposal, he struggled to unify all parties under a common framework.

BNP standing committee member Salahuddin Ahmed, who is leading the party’s delegation in the dialogue, alleged on Saturday that those pushing for the PR method may be attempting to delay or obstruct the upcoming national election.

BNP joint secretary general Ruhul Kabir Rizvi further warned on Thursday that the PR system could hinder the development of grassroots leadership and lead to the emergence of more autocrats.

On June 28, the IAB presented a 16-point declaration at a rally in Dhaka’s Suhrawardy Udyan, demanding PR in the national parliament.

IAB presidium member Ashraf Ali Akon recently said, ‘Our party will not support a bicameral parliament if the PR system is not applied to the lower house.’

During the NCC dialogue last week, he pointed out that several parties, including the Jamaat, Amar Bangladesh Party, and Communist Party of Bangladesh, had also demanded PR in the lower house.

On November 25 last year, the Jamaat submitted a written proposal to the CRC, seeking a combination of direct election and PR in parliament.Bangladesh-themed souvenirs

The party later revised its stance, recommending vote share-based PR in both houses. The Jamaat maintained this position during the second-round dialogue.

Initially opposing a bicameral parliament, the AB Party later shifted its stance.

Its joint secretary general Suny Abdul Haque recently said, ‘For a greater consensus, we agreed to a bicameral parliament. But we will reconsider our support if PR based on vote share is not implemented in the lower house.’

The Nationalist Citizen Party also supports vote share-based PR in the upper house. ‘We recommend the first-past-the-post system for the lower house,’ said NCP joint convener Javed Rasin.

CPB central committee secretary Sajedul Huq Rubel said that the party had been campaigning for PR since 1996.

However, he added, ‘The CPB has opposed the bicameral proposal. In view of the post-July uprising context, we now recommend the first-past-the-post system instead of PR.’

During the first-round dialogue, most political parties supported reinstating a non-partisan caretaker government for holding the national election.

However, no agreement has been reached on who would serve as the chief adviser to the caretaker government or how the post would be filled.

On July 2, the NCC proposed reinstating the 13th amendment to the constitution, which introduced a non-partisan caretaker government through article 58(C) of the constitution in 1996.

The amendment was abolished by the ousted Awami League regime through the 15th amendment in 2011.

The NCC further proposed that the president should appoint either the last retired chief justice, or the second-last retired chief justice, or the last retired Appellate Division judge, or any eligible person nominated by major parties as the chief adviser.

In the absence of a qualified candidate, the president should act as the chief adviser, as per the NCC proposal.

The BNP, along with the CPB, Socialist Party of Bangladesh and IAB, supported the proposal.Bangladesh-themed souvenirs

The Jamaat also backed reinstating the 13th amendment, but raised concerns over the president assuming the role as the chief adviser.

Parties like the NCP and Rashtra Sangskar Andolan opposed the proposal.

NCP’s Javed Rasin said that his party supported neither a judicial figure nor the president as the caretaker chief adviser.

Instead, the NCP proposed forming an all-party parliamentary committee to nominate a potential chief adviser, with the upper house stepping in if consensus is not reached.

Beyond the issues of PR and the chief adviser’s appointment, the NCC has also struggled to forge consensus on other critical topics, including the state’s fundamental principles, the presidential election system, a constitutional and statutory appointments committee, term limits for the prime minister, and women’s representation in Jatiya Sangsad.

Since launching the second-round dialogue on June 2, the NCC has reached consensus on reform of article 70, four opposition-led parliamentary standing committees, delimitation of constituencies every 10 years or after each census, reforming article 49 to regulate presidential clemency by laws and amending article 100 to allow permanent High Court seats at divisional headquarters.​

 

[Saif]

Election of proportional representation sparks concern of an AL comeback

One issue after another is being stirred up to obfuscate the issue of national election. Certain parties are trying to stall the election by coming up with all sorts of conditions. Unnecessary and irrelevant debates are being initiated. Unrealistic and unacceptable topics are being brought into...

en.prothomalo.com

Election of proportional representation sparks concern of an AL comeback

Maruf Mullick
Published: 07 Jul 2025, 12: 26

One issue after another is being stirred up to obfuscate the issue of national election. Certain parties are trying to stall the election by coming up with all sorts of conditions. Unnecessary and irrelevant debates are being initiated. Unrealistic and unacceptable topics are being brought into discussion. One such issue is the proposal to implement a proportional representation system in the election. This has recently been raised at rallies held by Islamic parties as an alternative to the current constituency-based electoral system. Previously, Jamaat-e-Islami and the newly formed National Citizens Party (NCP) have also voiced support for this system at different times.

Their argument in favour of this demand is that it would help prevent authoritarianism by any future party, stop minority parties from forming governments, and ensure representation of all parties.

This system also raises the risk of extremist and separatist elements entering parliament. It encourages identity- or religion-based politics among voters. It can foster hardline nationalism

There are flaws in these arguments. The first flaw is that authoritarianism cannot be prevented simply by calculating votes. Regular elections are held in Iran, Turkey, and Russia. Western media have not reported major irregularities in their electoral processes. Yet, these countries have not been able to prevent authoritarian rule. Notably, in Turkey, the parliament is formed through a proportional party-list system, but the country has a presidential system of governance. So the parliament does not carry much weight. In Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is the ultimate authority, just as Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is in Iran, or Vladimir Putin in Russia.

Secondly, in a constituency-based system, it is not possible for a minority to form the government. For example, in 1991 BNP received 30.8 per cent of the vote and secured 140 seats. Awami League, on the other hand, got 30.1 per cent of the vote but only won 88 seats. Again, in the 2001 election, the BNP won 193 seats with 41 per cent of the vote, while the Awami League, with 40.1 per cent, managed to win only 62 seats. In this system, the country is divided into different electoral constituencies, giving importance to local preferences. A kind of decentralisation of opinion is evident here. That is why the party with the most seats forms the government.

It should be kept in mind that the call for proportional representation initially came from Awami League’s allies. In the 1990s, the Communist Party (CPB), a long-time ally of the Awami League, was the first to propose proportional seat allocation. Later, another Awami League ally, Jatiya Party, raised the issue. Since then, Awami League leaders themselves have also spoken in favour of it on various occasions. This can easily be verified on the Net.

Before the upcoming election, Jamaat-e-Islami, NCP and other Islamist parties have slipped into the shoes of Awami League and its allies. In both 1991 and 2001, Awami League received nearly as many votes as BNP but failed to form a government as it did not win enough seats. Meanwhile, Jamaat and other Islamist parties have never performed well in a constituency-based election on their own. In 1996, Jamaat contested independently and won only three seats. Islami Oikya Jote managed to win just one or two seats.

Their situation remains largely unchanged today. They haven’t gained enough public support to win a significant number of seats. As a new party, NCP also doesn’t appear to be in a promising position. They calculate that a proportional representation system would give them more seats in parliament. For instance, Jamaat’s best performance in a solo election yielded just three seats. Some may cite the 1991 election, but Jamaat’s 18-seat win that year was the result of an unofficial understanding with BNP. In that election, Jamaat’s former ameer, Matiur Rahman Nizami, won a seat in Pabna with 55,707 votes. But in the 1996 election, when Jamaat contested alone, he came in third.

In 2001, he won again through an alliance with BNP. This shows that he couldn’t win without an alliance. In the 1996 election, Jamaat received 8.61 per cent of the total vote. Under proportional seat allocation, that would have given them 27 seats in parliament. That means Matiur Rahman Nizami could have been an MP in 1996. Even Shafiqur Rahman, the current ameer of Jamaat, who has not done well in national elections, could have made it to parliament under such a system. This is the main reason Jamaat supports proportional representation. A few other parties, including NCP, have echoed this demand. Since these parties have low popularity, their chances of winning many seats under the constituency system are slim. That is why they are advocating proportional representation in the hope of gaining a few seats.

Although proportional representation claims to ensure representation for all parties, in practice not all of them make it to parliament. A certain vote threshold must be crossed to win seats. For instance, even in countries with mixed electoral systems like Germany, a party must receive at least 5 per cent of the vote to gain parliamentary representation. In some countries, the threshold is 7 per cent; in others, 2.5 per cent. This varies depending on the population, number of political parties, and the voter base.

The biggest flaw of the proportional system is that it does not elect direct representatives of the people. It elects parties to govern. Except for a few rare exceptions, most countries using this system assign representatives based on party lists. This increases the power of the party and its leadership. Only those individuals favoured by the party or its leader get a chance to enter parliament. In constituency-based systems, local popularity is often taken into account when selecting candidates. In proportional systems, that opportunity shrinks. Parties no longer prioritise the opinions of local voters. This leads to further centralisation of power and narrows the scope for voter agency and decision-making.

This system also raises the risk of extremist and separatist elements entering parliament. It encourages identity- or religion-based politics among voters. It can foster hardline nationalism. Election politics may divide a country along ethnic or communal lines. Separatist groups may gradually grow stronger. This can put national independence and sovereignty at risk.

Such a system is likely to result in weak and unstable governments. The government becomes hostage to various ethnic or communal factions. It is forced to compromise on unacceptable issues just to cling to power. This can lead to constitutional deadlock.
Proportional representation also reduces accountability to voters. As a result, MPs often disregard local issues. It creates distance between MPs and local constituents.

Beyond all this, voter interest in elections may decline. Only the most loyal party supporters will continue voting. Swing voters may lose interest in the process.

Considering these issues -- our political maturity, as well as economic and social contexts --proportional representation is not a suitable option. Whether for the Lower House or the Upper House, there is no scope to implement this system. Holding constituency-based elections for the Lower House and allocating proportional seats in the upper house would not fundamentally change the character of the state. It would only create unnecessary complications. When it comes to the nation’s security and stability, there is no room for compromise.

It’s not as simple as saying: “Let’s accept the demand and hand out a few Upper House seats to some parties.” Governing a state is no child’s play. It requires wisdom and sound judgment.

Now the question may arise as to why this system is being implemented in most European countries. The primary reason is that in most of these European countries, there are strong and autonomous local government systems in place at the provincial and municipal levels. These local governments are fully self-governed. They formulate their own development plans. Sectors such as health, education, transport, commerce, and even law enforcement fall under the jurisdiction of local governments.

The central government only sets laws and policies. It monitors whether the local governments are properly following those laws and policies. Only defence and foreign policy are fully handled by the central government. In all other areas, local governments can reject central decisions and make their own. Moreover, many of these countries follow presidential systems of government.

In our country, there is no such strong or autonomous local government system. Everything is governed and controlled by the central government. In such a situation, adopting a proportional representation system would lead to administrative disorder. The most concerning aspect is that if this system is implemented, the ousted Awami League could return to parliament under a different guise.

Taking everything into account, our country is in no way prepared for elections based on proportional representation. The application of such a system is not feasible here. It may still be imposed by force, but doing so would put the country at serious risk. Some small parties, in trying to advance their narrow self-interests, are endangering national security. They remain trapped within the bounds of narrow partisan politics. National security and stability do not appear to be their concern.

* Dr. Maruf Mallick is a political analyst​

 

[Saif]

Are we ready for a proportional representation system?

The absence of any recommendation in favour of PR for the lower house has legal and procedural consequences.

www.thedailystar.net

Are we ready for a proportional representation system?

VISUAL: ANWAR SOHEL

The interim government's reform drive, initiated last October through the formation of six commissions, has entered a crucial phase. These commissions—focusing on constitutional, electoral, judicial, administrative, and anti-corruption reforms—have submitted their reports. Now, the task of building political consensus on their recommendations rests with the seven-member National Consensus Commission, which began its work on February 15 under the leadership of the chief adviser. The commission's mandate is to facilitate dialogue and agreement among political parties on proposals that could fundamentally reshape the nation's governance framework.

One of the more contentious issues to have surfaced in recent discussions is whether Bangladesh should adopt a proportional representation (PR) system for future parliamentary elections. Political parties are divided. Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami has publicly supported the idea and submitted proposals to that effect. Other parties have expressed similar interest, viewing PR as a route to more inclusive governance. But the BNP has strongly opposed it. Interestingly, despite the divide over PR, there is reported convergence on other structural reforms, such as the establishment of a bicameral legislature with a 100-member upper house and the assignment of the deputy speaker's role to the opposition.

To assess the feasibility of PR, one must return to the constitution. Article 65(2) provides that members of parliament shall be elected from single-member territorial constituencies by direct election. This enshrines the first-past-the-post (FPTP) model as the basis of Bangladesh's electoral process. Any move to introduce PR for the lower house would require a constitutional amendment under Article 142, which demands a two-thirds majority vote in parliament—a hurdle that is currently insurmountable in the absence of an elected legislature.

Furthermore, the reform commissions themselves have not advocated for PR in the lower house, provided that the bicameral parliamentary model is implemented. The Constitution Reform Commission has proposed retaining the direct election model for the lower house while suggesting that the proposed upper house could be constituted through a proportional representation system (pages 51-52 of its report). Meanwhile, the Electoral Reform Commission, despite extensive consultations, refrained from making any recommendation on this issue, citing sharp political disagreement (pages 84-87 of its report). The Electoral Reform Commission recognised that any change in the method of election would require a consensus that simply does not exist at this stage.

The absence of any recommendation in favour of PR for the lower house has legal and procedural consequences. The mandate of the National Consensus Commission is confined to building agreement on the proposals previously submitted by the major reform commissions, as it was established specifically to foster consensus around those earlier reform recommendations. Since the relevant commissions have not proposed PR for the lower house, this issue technically falls outside the scope of the current dialogue. More importantly, the Constitution Reform Commission has in fact proposed preserving the existing direct electoral system for the Jatiya Sangsad. It would therefore be institutionally inconsistent and procedurally misplaced for the National Consensus Commission to entertain a proposal that contradicts the reform roadmap already submitted.

This, however, does not mean that the conversation about PR is unwarranted. As a theoretical model, PR has several merits. It promises to reduce the distortions produced by FPTP, under which a party can win an overwhelming majority of seats with a far smaller share of the popular vote. It offers a more inclusive framework, potentially giving smaller and emerging parties a fair chance at representation. It can encourage coalition politics, reduce political alienation, and better reflect the diversity of public opinion. In principle, PR systems also allow for greater representation of women, religious minorities, and other underrepresented groups. Unlike the existing system, which reserves seats for women through indirect party nominations, a well-designed PR system could enable women to be elected directly from party lists. Many countries that have adopted PR, such as Sweden, Nepal and South Africa, have seen marked improvements in the descriptive and substantive representation of marginalised groups.

Yet any electoral system must be judged not in isolation but within the context in which it is to operate. Bangladesh's political culture is highly polarised. Its democratic institutions remain fragile. Electoral processes have been repeatedly marred by violence, boycotts, and allegations of irregularities. In this context, PR might introduce new complexities rather than resolve existing ones. Far from encouraging stable coalition governments, it could lead to fragmented parliaments filled with single-issue or regionally entrenched parties, making coherent governance difficult.

Another concern is institutional capacity. Implementing PR would require significant administrative reform, voter education, and legislative clarity. Public understanding of how votes translate into seats would need to be built through large-scale civic education programmes. Without careful preparation, the transition could create confusion and mistrust, further damaging an already strained electoral system.

Even among civil society, support for a blanket introduction of PR in the lower house is limited. Recently, 60 eminent citizens publicly called for a PR-based upper house to enhance inclusion and accountability. However, they were cautious about replicating that model for the lower house, fearing legislative gridlock and excessive fragmentation. Their view aligns with the Constitution Reform Commission's recommendation: preserve direct elections in the lower house but use PR for the proposed upper chamber to ensure a balance between local representation and proportional fairness.

That, perhaps, offers a way forward. Bangladesh could consider a mixed electoral system in the future, combining FPTP and PR models. Such systems are used successfully in countries like Germany and New Zealand, where some parliamentary seats are filled by direct constituency vote and others by party list based on national vote share. Alternatively, Bangladesh could introduce PR incrementally, first at the local government level or in a newly created upper house, allowing for institutional adaptation and political learning.

For now, however, the road to a PR system in parliamentary elections remains closed—legally, politically, and procedurally. The current constitution does not allow it. The reform commissions have not endorsed it. The political consensus required to amend the constitution is absent. And the mandate of the National Consensus Commission technically does not extend to issues beyond the submitted reform proposals.

It is tempting, in moments of democratic disillusionment, to look for structural fixes. But electoral systems are not magic wands. Their effectiveness depends on the political culture, institutional maturity, and level of public trust within which they operate. PR may well be a worthy goal for the future. For now, Bangladesh must focus on restoring the credibility of its existing system, ensuring free and fair elections, and gradually building the conditions under which more ambitious reforms like PR could eventually take root.

Khan Khalid Adnan is a barrister in England and Wales and an advocate of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. He also serves as the head of the chamber at Khan Saifur Rahman & Associates.​