[🇧🇩] Reforms carried out by the interim/future Govts.

[Saif]

Source : https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/views/news/are-we-ready-bangladesh-20-3677801

Are we ready for Bangladesh 2.0?

We must commit ourselves to work with women, girls, youth, the discriminated, and the marginalised to build their agency and voice in Bangladesh 2.0. PHOTO: AFP

What just happened in Bangladesh is a revolution led and staged by students with people's support. In this historical moment when Gen Z and reformists are driving Bangladesh, I feel charged and would like to reflect on the call made by Dr Muhammad Yunus for people to come forward and work with him. The Yunus-led interim government along with the student leaders have the task for reform and the establishment of justice cut out for them. So let us take a step in the direction of our action and commitment to materialise this agenda.

Should we call for a new social contract—an agreement among individuals within a social group to abide by rules and laws for collective good—that reflects inclusion and equity? Are we ready to decolonise our minds and refrain from the "fear narrative" across all levels? Can we commit to stop celebrating violence in all possible narratives? If not, can there be a change until we shed old habits and work on our sense of responsible citizenship, moral values, and integrity?

Are we ready to stop discriminating based on gender, class, and caste, responding to the movement's call for an end to discrimination? Will we refrain from oppressing the marginalised? Will society commit to ending patriarchy? Can we commit to ending abuse due to structural causes as well as child abuse, child marriage, domestic violence, harassment, and sexual abuse perpetrated by individuals in both private and public spaces? Would this be possible in a society where 51 percent of girls in the age group of 15-18 years in Bangladesh are still being married off?

One way to address these will be by taking legal measures and bringing systemic change. However, these efforts will fail if we do not work to end socially acceptable harmful practices, sustained by society. Arguments put forward for harmful practices have always been about the safety and security of the girls and women in society. Did anyone ask if they need protectors or would rather opt for the end of male dominance? Are we ready to acknowledge the toxic traits of the oppressors that have inadvertently infected everyone even though the nation collectively hate them? I, however, understand that patriarchy and oppression by the powerful will take time to wear off.

Also, are we willing to restrain from arrogance and self-promotion, self-interest, and power aggrandizement? Experts have repeatedly stated that one of the reasons for the fall of the autocrat is her arrogance that grew from a sense of power over others and intolerance to dissent.

Are we ready not to impose our beliefs and thoughts on others and instead work on universal values? Are we ready to rise above our comfort zones and sit at the same table with those with opposing views to be truly inclusive? Can we agree not to force our decisions on children, and respect women and girls? Will we commit not to grab power, business, land, and property? Youth should be aware when the elders try to rationalise these practices as something necessary to secure their future.

We believe malpractice and exploitation cannot be the foundation of any stable or sustainable future. However, can we expect corporate actors to move away from extractive and exploitative practices and engage in business interests with the environment, ecology, climate change, and climate justice in mind? Will they commit to the transition from fossil fuels to green growth and invest as necessary to make that critical change? Youth engagement in climate justice is increasingly vital for fostering lasting change, particularly in Bangladesh, where recent political shifts have amplified the voices of young people. Their collective demands include accountability and transparency in the management of climate funds, alongside the eradication of corruption in environmental projects. As we rebuild the country, strong advocacy for a green economic recovery emphasising sustainable job creation in renewable energy and eco-friendly industries is needed. Addressing the challenges youth face at the grassroots level is essential, particularly in the context of climate justice. The actions today will shape the future.

No one is safe until all can participate and enjoy their entitlements. Therefore, society's agenda should be: how will we make everyone feel welcome and comfortable to share their thoughts and be heard as a mark of us respecting knowledge leadership, community, women, and youth leadership? Can we be connected to people, thoughts, ambitions, ideas, approaches, and energy in a way that has not been the case before?

Can we commit ourselves to work with women, girls, youth, the discriminated, and the marginalised to build their agency and voice in Bangladesh 2.0?

Farah Kabir is the country director of ActionAid Bangladesh.​

 

[Saif]

Can a proportional representation system ensure better democracy?

In the PR system, each party may be required to pay a certain amount of money as security fee against each of its nominated candidates.

www.thedailystar.net

Can a proportional representation system ensure better democracy?

FILE VISUAL: ANWAR SOHEL

In Bangladesh elections, we practise the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. The candidate receiving the highest number of votes in a constituency wins a seat in parliament. The political party winning the highest number of seats in parliament forms the government alone, or through coalition. If the FPTP system is changed to the proportional representation (PR) system, in full or in part, it may bring about improvement in the existing political system of the country, providing for peaceful elections and more free, fair and credible representation of voters through their elected representatives in parliament.

In the PR system, an election is among registered political parties. There will no longer be 300 constituencies; the whole country will be one single constituency. Each party may declare names of its candidates well ahead of the day of election (three to six months ahead). In the alternative, for convenience's sake, lists of candidates may be closed ones. Except for a few top members, no one in a party will know the names of nominated candidates, until the results are declared.

In the PR system, each party may be required to pay a certain amount of money as security fee against each of its nominated candidates. A party believing that it may win only 100 seats based on proportion should field 100 candidates or a few more, like 130 candidates. That will help the party save security money. A provision may be there that if a party, for instance, fields 100 candidates but gets 120 seats based on proportion, it will be allowed to give 20 new candidates to be declared elected, subject to payment of higher (as penal) security fees against the additional candidates. In the alternative, a provision may be made that those 20 seats shall stand forfeited to be redistributed by a re-election, or that those 20 seats may be distributed to other winning parties according to the ratio of proportion subject to payment of additional security fees. A provision may be made that a party winning less than 10 seats, as against 100 candidates fielded, shall be deregistered for future elections, and the seats won shall be forfeited so as to be distributed among the remaining qualified parties proportionately. Or, if not, the security fees of those 90 candidates not elected shall be forfeited. That may act as a deterrence to help sensitise parties to field a reasonable number of candidates.

For an easier understanding, the matter may be illustrated as follows in the context of Bangladesh's unicameral legislature. If four parties—namely parties A, B, C and D—contest, each nominating 300 candidates from the centre, and after polling and counting it appears that Party A has received 50 percent of the total votes cast, Party B received 30 percent, Party C 10 percent, and Party D 10 percent, then Party A will take 50x3=150 out of 300 seats, Party B will take 30x3=90 seats, Party C will take 10x3=30 seats and Party D will take 10x3=30 seats. Thus, all 300 seats will be occupied. If a party gets only one percent of the votes cast, it will get three seats in parliament. If a party gets only 0.34 percent votes, it will get one seat in parliament. If the ratio of votes received by a party is less than 0.34 percent, that party may or may not get a seat, based upon an arithmetical formula to be made regarding that. If a party gets fewer than 150 seats, it will have to make a coalition to raise its seats to more than 150. This system is working in many countries, and can be further studied by examining how it works in countries practising the PR system.

No by-election will be necessary in case of deaths, etc of a member of parliament. The party concerned will fill in the position of the demised member from the original list as per the order of precedence for the rest of the tenure. Or in the alternative, that party may be allowed to auto-elect a new candidate as the new MP. This way, the proportional representation system may reduce expenses as well as hassles of holding by-elections. Reserved seats for women may be done away with. To ensure adequate representation of women in parliament, each contesting party may be required to declare two lists, i.e. a general list for all and a reserved list for women only. If 10 percent of the seats should be reserved for women, a provision of law may be that any party nominating candidates shall be required to enlist two women candidates among each 10 candidates. In that case, a party proposing 300 candidates shall propose 60 women candidates. Hence, there shall be 60 women MPs among 300 MPs. A separate election to reserved seats for women shall not be necessary then. That also simplifies the overall electoral process.

If a party does not win more than 50 percent of the seats, and a coalition is, therefore, needed to be made and cannot be made readily within a certain specified time, the largest party may be allowed to make government, and its seats in parliament may be declared deemed (by legal fiction) raised to 151 for the formation of the government and all ordinary voting purposes in the legislature. No right-away stalemate in government or parliament will be created in that case. If a coalition can be made, a coalition government can run for a full term of five years or as long as the coalition endures. If a coalition breaks, and no further coalition is made, a fresh election may be held within 90-120 days of that.

If the PR system is introduced, the provision of contest by independent candidates may be repealed. In the present FPTP system, a genuine, strong candidate may field a few fake or dummy independent candidates in order to obtain polling agents for them and to control polling stations by them. Individual candidates in constituencies may resort to multiple malpractices in order to win at any cost, whether voters support them or not. In the PR system, one cannot do that for more than one seat. Originally, one could contest in all 300 seats by virtue of the constitutional provision. Then by the 1984 amendment of the Representation of the People Order (RPO), 1972, it was made five seats. Then by further amending the RPO in 2008, it was made three seats. There was no rationale for it. In the PR system, there will be no scope of that. Constitutional amendments will be necessary to introduce the PR system. Not many amendments—only a few amendments may do.

Such a system, if introduced, will do away with many prevalent malpractices like muscle and money power, bribing, violence in and around polling stations, ballot snatching, ballot stuffing, rigging, etc. The hassle of maintaining 300 constituencies will no longer be there. Delimitation of constituencies will not be necessary. The hassle of contest by independent candidates will be done away with. The hassle of contest in more than one seat by one candidate may also be done away with. Another major advantage of the system will be that the hassles of nomination submissions locally all over the country will be substantially reduced. Nomination will be submitted centrally in Dhaka, the capital, directly or online. All (100 percent) voters will be represented in parliament. Now a party, receiving only 25 percent of the votes cast, may form government. That never happens in the PR system.

Parliamentary elections may be more transparent, free, fair and credible in the PR system. In the existing FPTP system, incidents of false voting, centre-capturing, ballot-snatching and ballot stuffing, rigging, manipulation, influencing the police, administration and polling officers with money or threats, etc are quite many and random. If the proportional representation system is introduced, such incidents will reduce substantially.

More than a hundred countries in the world practise some form of the PR system in national elections. The demographic homogeneity in Bangladesh may be conducive to the introduction of this system. The pros and cons, merits and demerits of the proportional representation system may be studied in the context of Bangladesh, and if found suitable and introduced, the conduct of elections in Bangladesh may become much easier. Elections will be far less expensive. That may help develop a healthy political culture and a better democracy.

Kazi Habibul Awal is the chief election commissioner of Bangladesh.​

 

[Saif]

Why a political consensus on reforms is necessary

The country needs a new political settlement among the key actors, currently critically important in Bangladesh’s politics.

www.thedailystar.net

Why a political consensus on reforms is necessary

Illustration: Rehnuma Proshoon

On August 5, 2024, Sheikh Hasina, who was serving as the prime minister, tendered her resignation and subsequently left the country. What initially appeared to be a relatively modest request for reform in the quota system rapidly evolved into a widespread and intense mass uprising within just a few days. This transformation underscores the deep-seated discontent simmering beneath the surface.

The mass uprising can be attributed to four major factors. First, the demand for reforming the quota system had garnered substantial support from students and the general populace. Second, persistently high inflation, shrinking job and business opportunities, and pervasive corruption created significant public dissatisfaction. Third, the lack of political freedoms, restrictions on freedom of expression, and general political oppression contributed to growing discontent among the populace. Finally, the Awami League's top leaders, in their attempt to suppress the movement, exhibited a severe lack of sensitivity and arrogance. Their use of excessive force to quell the protests resulted in an unprecedented number of fatalities among students and ordinary citizens within just a few days, further fuelling the anger and intensity of the uprising.

On August 8, 2024, the interim government, under the leadership of Dr Muhammad Yunus, a Nobel laureate, came to power. The interim administration is expected to manage the immediate aftermath of the unrest, address the pressing issues that had fuelled the uprising, and lay the groundwork for a stable and orderly transition to a more permanent government.

The political settlement under the Hasina regime

Under Sheikh Hasina's leadership, the political landscape was characterised by a dominant party regime. Although the 2009 election was competitive, subsequent elections in 2014, 2018, and 2024 faced significant criticisms for their serious flaws. Sheikh Hasina's dominant party regime exhibited five key characteristics. First, the regime was marked by a coalition of five primary actors: the ruling political elites, influential economic elites (predominantly cronies), the civil bureaucracy, the military bureaucracy, and law enforcement agencies, all centred around Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. This coalition worked collaboratively to maintain control and influence across various sectors. Second, this coalition fostered a "stable corruption equilibrium" among corrupt ruling political elites, corrupt civil and military bureaucrats, corrupt law enforcement agencies, and dominant private sector cronies. These actors had a broad consensus on major economic policies and political agendas, particularly in managing and profiting from critical economic sectors, including large infrastructure projects. Third, the regime faced a significant legitimacy deficit, largely due to the flawed elections of 2014, 2018, and 2024. This legitimacy gap was further exacerbated by the use of force, political repression, and widespread corruption to retain power. Fourth, by focusing on infrastructure and development, the government aimed to present itself as a promoter of progress and economic growth, thereby compensating for its shortcomings in democratic governance and political legitimacy. Fifth, this regime managed to secure "unconditional" support from key regional players of geopolitics, especially India, China, and Russia, despite the regime suffering from a critical deficit in political legitimacy.

However, the regime's claim to developmental legitimacy weakened as the economy plunged into crisis from prolonged high inflation and macroeconomic instability. Finally, with the departure of Sheikh Hasina, the old political settlement was broken.

Major challenges of the interim government

The interim government is confronted with several significant challenges. First, the government should address the breakdown in law and order, ensuring security and restoring public trust across the nation. There have been reported cases of attacks on minorities, which need to be prevented. Second, the interim administration must work to restore and optimise supply chains to support businesses, ensure the availability of essential goods, and promote economic recovery. Third, with high inflation eroding purchasing power, the government must implement measures to stabilise prices. Fourth, the government needs to tackle severe macroeconomic issues, including falling foreign reserves, and sluggish growth in exports and remittances. Fifth, to ensure a smooth and credible democratic transition, reforms that uphold democratic principles and restore public confidence in governance should be instituted by fostering political dialogues and setting up transparent electoral processes. No doubt, all these challenges may intensify in the context of the changed and uncertain dynamics of the interim government's relationship with regional and global power players.

Why is a new political settlement necessary?

The interim government will not be able to function properly and address challenges if there is a fragile political settlement. The country needs a new political settlement among the key actors, currently critically important in Bangladesh's politics. They are the student movement platform, political parties, the military, the bureaucracy, and the private sector. However, these actors have differing agendas and lack a unified consensus. Also, the regional and global power players may exert their influence on these agendas.

While political parties are pressing for elections to be held as soon as possible, the student movement advocates for comprehensive reforms across political, administrative, constitutional, economic, and institutional domains to ensure a meaningful democratic transition. There is strong support for these reforms from civil society. The roles and positions of the military, bureaucracy, and private sector in this context remain ambiguous.

Without a clear consensus on the necessity of these reforms, and with the possibility of elections being held prematurely, there is a substantial risk of reverting to entrenched, undemocratic practices. The outcome of the new political settlement will largely depend on the relative strength and bargaining power of these actors. Civil society organisations have a crucial role to play in facilitating dialogue to forge a political consensus on the reform agenda, thereby contributing to a more stable and democratic political settlement. If that doesn't happen, the country could face extended periods of political instability.

Dr Selim Raihan is professor at the Department of Economics at the University of Dhaka and executive director of South Asian Network on Economic Modeling (Sanem).​

 

[Saif]

The opportunity to reform Bangladesh must not be wasted

We Bangladeshis have a special strength, which enables us to form mass uprisings and put up resistance.

www.thedailystar.net

The opportunity to reform Bangladesh must not be wasted

The disciplined manner in which the students conducted the movement and the courage that they showed us then truly gave us faith in them. Photo: Naimur Rahman
We Bangladeshis have a special strength, which enables us to form mass uprisings and put up resistance. There is a saying that rebellion against injustice is justified. In Bangladesh's context, we can also say that rebellion against injustice is irresistible. Time and again, our people have risen against injustice, bringing victory. Then again, what is worrying is the defeat of the purpose that follows. We saw this in 1971, in 1990, and it is a matter of concern even now.

This movement was definitely a mass uprising. Though students started it, we saw everyone taking part in it—from children to the elderly. Parents of the students joined in, their teachers joined in; journalists, lawyers and ordinary citizens in the cities as well as remote areas joined in, coming out to the streets. This is a remarkable feat. A key characteristic of this uprising was that it was not led by any political party, unlike the movements in 1969, 1971 and 1990. Political parties did support the movement. The left democratic parties expressed support from the beginning. The BNP said they supported the movement a lot later on. But none of them were the leaders. This movement was truly led by the students, under the banner Students against Discrimination. This name is beautifully significant. The fascist government had spread its roots so deeply that no other political party deemed it possible to remove it. The strength that was displayed by these inexperienced students to make it possible, I think, is the inherent strength of Bangladesh.

In every country, whenever an autocracy falls, severe uncertainty follows. This is because they ruin the state institutions and the democratic system. Then different groups emerge and try to fulfil their own agendas. We witnessed this on August 5 as well. When we learnt at around 2pm that Sheikh Hasina was leaving, the leaders of Students against Discrimination could not be found for a few hours. This created a situation of vandalism, looting, and communal violence, which continued well into the night. There was no leadership, no direction. The military assumed authority, but it didn't seem like they had any preparation to deal with a situation like this. As a result, we witnessed events that marred this victory.

The presence of the leaders of Students against Discrimination, who later that night called for stopping the violence, destruction, and communal violence, is very important. The Bangladesh that we dream of is where our state institutions function properly, a democratic system is in place, and everyone plays their roles responsibly. Ensuring this is critical.

During the 90s, we know that the three coalitions each had an outline, none of which was realised. Jamaat-e-Islami was also in the movement with Awami League and BNP, after which it became a partner of BNP. We now know how many actions took place against our national interest. In 1991, under Prof Rehman Sobhan, a task force was created in which a lot of influential thinkers participated and planned how the future of Bangladesh would be. I had written a book in Bangla with a summary of it. None of this was paid heed to by the subsequent elected political parties. The path created by military dictator Ershad was followed by the same parties that brought him down. Neither the education and health goals nor the national interests were realised.

Whenever the people, whose power is needed and used to bring down an autocracy, are deprived of their power and rights, it leads to an accumulation of powers who work for their own benefits. This includes both national and international groups. We experienced this in the 1990s and should remember that now.

Now, the Students against Discrimination are a key stakeholder. Along with them, the Left Democratic Alliance, the teachers' network, journalists, lawyers, writers, artists, and singers all participated. I believe all of these groups need to play an active, united role now. Otherwise, our state will be occupied again. Now is the time to prevent that occupation.

Already signs of occupation are visible. We were all surprised to see the meeting at Bangabhaban with the president, the current legal head of the nation, where there were no representatives from the Students against Discrimination. Instead, political parties who had nothing to do with the movement, and already have accusations of wrongdoing, participated in the first crucial meeting. It was said that meetings would be held with the political parties, but the Left Democratic Alliance, which has always been active in this movement, has not been called to these meetings. I believe these deviations are a reason behind the unwanted events that occurred across the country.

There were three kinds of attackers. The first were those who have suffered over the past decade and more. They have been outraged for a long time. The state should have given them hope that those who had done them wrong would be brought to justice. The second kind were opportunity seekers. They look for any opportunities to loot and gain monetary benefits. We see them even when there is a road accident. Some people go forward to help any victims, and there are some who go to steal. The third were communal attackers who committed heinous crimes on vulnerable communities that sent a wrong message to everyone about the movement, those who participated in the movement, and about Bangladesh as a whole to the international community.

The student leaders have spoken out against it. We, from the Bangladesh University Teachers' Network stood up, and later on, some political parties also sent positive messages. I am assuming that no further events that can stigmatise this movement will take place anymore.

The prime minister has resigned, the ministers' cabinet has been dissolved. The president has dissolved the parliament. He will now give another election. According to the constitution, he is the main person, the last resort. To support him in doing this, for the time being, he can form a government. The constitution does not have any restriction against that. This interim government is very important for changing the future of Bangladesh. The main duty of this interim government is to hold the election. But there are some requirements that need to be fulfilled before that, which are reforming our state institutions. Our government agencies are flooded with corruption. Even the court is now dysfunctional.

The constitution itself needs reform. It has become autocratic, power-centralised, and communal. Anyone who comes to power with this constitution will turn into an autocratic government. So, to reform the constitution, a national consensus needs to be created. Then there are the megaprojects and mega-development trends in the financial sector. It is a centre of mass corruption. Our rivers, water bodies, forests, and hills are occupied. In the name of development, there were many projects such as Rampal and Rooppur power plants that are just bad for us and our future. Wealth has been centralised. A small segment of the population has accumulated a massive amount of wealth. All of this should be investigated. At the very least, the pathway must be created to change the trend of all our economy, resources, and political power going into the hands of a few. We cannot go back to the same place we just came from. We cannot allow a repeat of all of this considering the hundreds of students and innocent people who have given their lives to get us this opportunity now. So reforming the state institutions, the constitution, and the policies needs to be done.

But I do believe that the aspiration that was behind this movement cannot be fulfilled without the active participation of Students against Discrimination and everyone who stood beside them. If the ordinary citizens stop their own active participation, thinking that some people are going to go forward and develop and reform the country, that will be a mistake. This thought has doomed us in the past. Awami League, BNP, Jatiya Party—everyone has shown that when in power, they completely forget the people's interests. So we have to be alert to ensure it ourselves.

Those who want to gain personal benefits and want wealth centralisation actually want an autocratic government in Bangladesh. It becomes easier for them to deal with this government for the sake of their own financial gains. This type of government benefits some foreign parties too. We know India has multiple projects in Bangladesh that are harmful to us, such as Rampal and some projects by Adani. Russia has given us loans for Rooppur. We cannot even properly fathom what kind of catastrophe we are heading towards because of this. The US has multiple contracts about oil that don't go in our favour. China's big contracts with Bangladesh lack clarity. So, for these national and international groups, it is better if there is no democratic system in place in the country. No matter how much these countries preach about democracy, when it comes to other nations, they will always prioritise their own financial benefits over democracy.

Among the powerful stakeholders in the Bangladesh government, we find brokers for China, the US, India, and Russia. We just don't see a person truly representing Bangladesh's interests. Now is the time to truly find people who will negotiate with all these parties with Bangladesh's interests in mind over everything else. We have to work towards this and ensure it ourselves. These are long-term objectives. For the interim government, the first thing to ensure is the security of the nation's citizens, especially all the minorities including Hindus, the Indigenous groups, and even the Muslim minorities such as Ahmadiyyas.

No one should come under attack because of their identity either. Just because someone is a police member, does not mean that attacking them is justified. It doesn't mean they are a wrongdoer. Just because someone is a member of the Awami League doesn't mean they are a bad person. Those who have committed crimes, of course, need to be brought to justice. The police who have shot at the students, of course, need to be tried in court. But based on the identity of the police or Awami League, they cannot be attacked outside of the law. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's statue or his museum should not have been vandalised. This was not the goal of the movement. The goal was to remove the autocracy and the torture of a corrupt system. It is the responsibility of us all to ensure the movement isn't tarnished by actions like these.

This is a big responsibility on the shoulders of the students. The 2018 Road Safety Movement by students of schools and colleges was an amazingly joyous event for us to witness. The disciplined manner in which the students conducted the movement and the courage that they showed us then truly gave us faith in them. They have grown up since then, and a lot of them are now here in this movement. A lot of the seniors that we had before had perhaps given up, sold themselves, turned into fossils, let go of themselves. It is now the rest of us seniors' duty that this youth doesn't lose track. We should guide them with whatever resources we have and the organisations that are in place to support them. We should stand beside them to make sure that the blood that has been shed by the youth, and the friends that they saw die beside them, is not wasted by destroying the opportunity they have created by sacrificing so much.

Anu Muhammad is former professor of economics of Jahangirnagar University.​

 

[Saif]

Revolution to reform: The long and arduous path to lasting democratic change

The necessary steps that must be taken in consultation with the constitution for a just democracy in Bangladesh.

www.thedailystar.net

Revolution to reform: The long and arduous path to lasting democratic change

It is important to follow due process in consultation with the constitution in each step towards achieving reforms. FILE PHOTO: STAR

Bangladesh's recent transition of power, albeit long overdue, triggers troubling questions about what led us to this point. The fact that the police, paramilitary forces and other security personnel could be used to brutally shoot at unarmed student protesters, that the judiciary failed to intervene, and that a number of media institutions were complicit in peddling state-sanctioned propaganda, laid bare the deeply eroded democratic institutions in our country.

The question of how we harness the energy from a successful people's movement to engender lasting reforms to our democracy, preventing future misuses and abuses of power of this magnitude, but more importantly enabling a democratic, just and modern Bangladesh that we can all be proud of, therefore remains paramount. In other words, the much sought-after alternative (or "bilokpo") is not about (a set of) people or any particular political party, but rather a set of institutions and processes that people can trust and rely on to protect the public interest and their rights even under the worst of leaders.

As important as this reform agenda is, it is equally important to follow due process in consultation with the constitution in each step towards achieving these reforms, or else we would risk our rebirth being on the back of a shaky foundation.

A constitutionally-sanctioned path to an interim government

Although it is yet to be publicly available, Sheikh Hasina's resignation has opened numerous debates on the formation of an interim government. Following countless hours of meetings, Prof. Muhammad Yunus was selected to be the Chief Adviser of the interim government. This was a welcome announcement amidst all the uncertainty and instability, since the power vacuum and disorder in the immediate aftermath of the resignation continues to be ripe for exploitation by opportunistic forces—including the starving opposition, ambitious factions within the armed forces, or foreign interests—and there has been ongoing violence against minority communities. It remains urgent to complete the formal handover of power, since the current vacuum could still be used by the military to take over using a proclamation of emergency by invoking Article 141A of the constitution, an outcome that must be avoided at all costs.

However, given the many wounds inflicted on the constitution over the past three decades of a fraught democracy, the constitution-respecting, yet viable and just, path to the formation of this interim government remains unclear.

The Constitution (15th Amendment) Act 2011, introduced by the Awami League government, removed the provision for a caretaker government. Given the many controversies and irregularities surrounding it, the first best option would be to carefully review the relevant court rulings by constitutional experts to confirm its full interpretation. In the absence of such due diligence, arguing that this "interim" government is materially different from the previous iterations of "caretaker" governments may prove difficult.

Assuming this is not realistic, another possible way forward is through a President's Ordinance that ushers in the interim government with clarifications on term limits, scope of governance, and rule-making powers. However, this poses the risk of being overturned, and the process deemed unconstitutional, by the next elected parliament.

Another approach, which may also be used to legally "button up" the option above, may be to introduce a referendum to gain public support in formulating an interim government that will be tasked to hold a credible election under Article 119(2), followed by a ratification by the Appellate Division arguing doctrine of necessity under Article 106. In this regard, it may be argued that initiating a referendum is not materially "altering or repealing" any parts of the Constitution, but merely adding to it.

Regardless of which path is chosen, it is extremely important that it is accomplished in a way that cannot be challenged in court, delegitimising the "interim" government, and creating another power vacuum and associated instability before it can fulfil its duty of organising a free and fair election. Secondly, the committee of constitutional experts charged with this process must be very careful, as this sets precedent for the next few decades of democracy and governance in Bangladesh. A third, more ideological argument ties to the movement's spirit of re-establishing rule of law and strengthening democratic institutions in the country. Therefore, it is incumbent upon decision makers to ensure that the first step towards a renewed Bangladesh must show commensurate respect for the rule of law, which includes the prevailing, however dysfunctional, constitution.

Further roadblocks to a free and fair election

Even if we find a constitutional path forward towards establishing an interim government, there are still risks. The Bangladeshi public has had bitter experiences in the past with a caretaker government staying beyond its term. To tackle these risks, it is important that there are clear, procedural safeguards to ensure credibility of the government, and a time-bound transition of power. These safeguards include ensuring that the government consists of competent civilian advisors without political ambitions, whose nomination and selection is done through a transparent and publicly acceptable process, and not dictated by the military or political parties. It is necessary that the president and his advisers consult with a broad range of non-state stakeholders, in addition to student representatives and political constituencies, for transparency and widespread acceptance.

As if all these hurdles were not enough, perhaps the most difficult challenge comes from ongoing debates around the interim government's term limit. Undoubtedly, a period of 90 or 120 days from the dissolution of the parliament is insufficient for an election to be held, especially against the backdrop of systematically dismantled and co-opted institutions.

Some, including the student representatives, suggest a term limit of three to six years, while others have recommended a term limit of up to one year, and no more than two. The former argue that three to six years is needed to create new or renewed political leadership that provides the public with options during polls, as well as necessary institutional reform across all sectors.

Critics of a longer-term limit for an interim government have flagged the risks of it undermining democratic norms, being deemed unconstitutional and their decisions overturned by a future elected parliament, limitations in rulemaking powers to create lasting reforms, and a lack of mandate for public accountability that is necessary for effective and transparent governance. An unelected interim government also exists against the backdrop of possible military co-option, which could destabilise our aspirations and sacrifice for democracy and rule of law.

Even if the doctrine of necessity, or a referendum, or both, are used to extend the term limit, one must remember that it sets legal precedence and must be fool-proof from current or future challenges in court.

Accountability of perpetrators

While there are widespread calls for justice, including the need for an interim government to ensure an independent court tries perpetrators of violence against students and civilians, it is unlikely a fair trial will succeed under a non-independent judiciary. Therefore, a key task of the interim government could be facilitating a fact-finding process through the United Nation (UN)'s transitional justice framework. The recently announced citizen-led inquiry commission could act as a "truth and reconciliation commission" with UN support to ensure transparency and international standards.

This fact-finding process can pave the way for substantive criminal justice reform under a future-elected government, ensuring transparency and accountability with evidence permissible in court.

Constitutional reform and beyond

However, even with a free and fair democratic election, lasting reform is unlikely to materialise if our painful political history of betrayals is any indication. For this reason, the framework and process for a fundamental constitutional reform must be outlined and agreed on through robust public consultations during the period of the interim government, with its ratification mandated as the first task of the new elected government (a better alternative might have been to ratify the constitutional amendment through a national referendum, but our current constitutional framework does not allow for it). This must be a thorough process which reverses the crippling changes made by the 15th and 16th amendments, including elimination of the widely debated Article 70, that restricts voting freedom for parliament members, protection and freedoms to organise and register new political parties, deliberation around a two-layered parliament with proportional representation in one of the houses to provide additional cushion against future constitutional encroachments, decentralisation of power effectively to regional and local constituencies, re-establishment of the independence and separation between the judiciary, executive and legislative branches of government, guarantees to safeguard human rights and freedom of expression for all including political oppositions and ethnic/religious minorities, and imposition of term limits for party and national leadership.

This process, under the future-elected government, must include public consultations, and deeply study and learn from the successes and failures of similar reform processes in other countries such as Chile, Lebanon, Kenya and Tunisia, and from our own country's chequered history.

However, even the most well thought out constitutional reforms are ultimately not enough. If there's anything this painful and dark chapter of Bangladesh's history has taught us, we must always be vigilant and courageous against those in power, and always keep our representatives in check. If we look around, examples abound of revolutionaries turned dictators. It is only a politically aware and vocal electorate, and systems that nurture the health of that polity, that can protect against a future tyrant. That fundamental shift in mindset in each and every citizen, is the ultimate reform we must all work towards and aspire to.

Rubayat Khan is co-founder of Jagoree, a citizen's activism platform. Sabhanaz Rashid Diya is a Visiting Policy Fellow at University of Oxford. Shahzeb Mahmood is a researcher at University of New South Wales.​

 

[Saif]

Column by Mahfuz Anam: Taste of freedom regained

A magnificent opportunity with potential pitfalls.

www.thedailystar.net

Column by Mahfuz Anam: Taste of freedom regained
A magnificent opportunity with potential pitfalls

ILLUSTRATION: BIPLOB CHAKROBORTY

The student-led people's movement toppling an autocratic government reminds me of a song by Sabina Yasmin: "Shob kota janala khule dao na, ami gaibo gaibo bijoyeri gaan" (Open all windows, I want to sing the song of victory). Though it was in praise of our Liberation War, it resonates in my heart today. Suddenly, we are living in a world without barriers of thought. Many of us had forgotten how to speak freely. We would always either switch off or put our mobile phone in the adjoining room, because of the surveillance regime that we lived under. Self-censorship became embedded in our subconscious. A small minority of print media tried to hold power to account while the rest competed with each other to genuflecting themselves to power. They opted for "lapdog" journalism rather than being the "watchdog." Fear of saying anything other than the koshered version was so prevalent that frank opinions were only expressed in the most intimate of settings. Anybody speaking to us as journalists would preface their comments by saying "not to be quoted."

For the last 10 years or more, nothing could be said against Sheikh Hasina or any member of her family. Expressions like "powers that be," "highest level of decision-making," etc were used while referring to the former prime minister. A law was enacted, under the guise of showing respect to the father of the nation, that made punishable even the slightest criticism of any member of Sheikh Hasina and her family. Throughout her tenure, the use of cartoons of the former PM, her sister, son, daughter, niece and nephew, or any negative comment about them, however well-documented, was not permitted, and harassment including jail term could not be ruled out. Anything but the "family" was the norm in our storytelling.

Rigged elections in 2014, 2018 and 2024, and Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League getting away with it, served to demoralise us the most. In every democracy, however flawed, elections serve to be an occasion for robust expression of the public will. This the people of Bangladesh, save those belonging to the ruling party and its allies, were deprived of. Also, by repeatedly manipulating elections, the Hasina government deprived itself of the vital feedback that free and fair elections usually give, as evidenced by the last election results in India. By manipulating elections, Sheikh Hasina, her government and her party never got the real message and, as such, suddenly found the ground shifted from under their feet when the student-led movement started.

The question that keeps on churning in my mind is: how did we go there? Why couldn't we prevent this from happening? Did we protest as we saw our freedoms being erased? Here comes the issue of moral bankruptcy of our intellectuals in general. As we saw Sheikh Hasina get more and more entrenched in power, we became more and more amenable to compromise.

The Awami League led a group of 14 parties in which some very renowned politicians were involved. These politicians spent their lives in trade union movements, fought for peasants' rights, women's rights, anti-extremism and democracy. But as a part of the then ruling party alliance, they all got sucked into the world of privilege, wealth and power. How could these leaders not see the rot that was setting in?

Over the 15 years of Sheikh Hasina's tenure, we didn't hear of a single resignation from any post within the government or outside. No minister, no MP, no academic, no professor, no vice-chancellor, no judge ever had the moral courage to stand up and say, "Enough. I will not take this anymore and will be guided by my conscience."

The way the highest tier of judges fell in line to oust the then chief justice, Surendra Kumar Sinha, will remain as the most shameful capitulation of the judiciary to the executive in Bangladesh's history. All Appellate Division judges were called by the president, on returning from which the group declared that they would no longer sit in any bench or participate in any deliberations where the chief justice would be present. In effect, all the judges expressed "no confidence" in the chief justice. But on what grounds? No explanation was given.

This one instance in which the mere wish of the prime minister led to the sacking of the highest judge of the highest court, with not even a demur by so many senior judges, sealed, in my view, any chance of independence of the judiciary. But it was brought on by the judges themselves. Couldn't a single judge resign to protect the dignity of the judiciary?

When the judiciary succumbed without clamour, all the other institutions and the people within them lost hope. One by one, most institutions collapsed—and often with our own help.

Judged against the background of total institutional collapse, the crucial significance of the student-led uprising cannot be overestimated. The chief of the interim government Prof Muhammad Yunus most appropriately termed the uprising our second "liberation." It is truly so. We now have a genuine chance of undertaking fundamental reforms that we so desperately need.

The student-mass uprising has broken down all structures of oppression. It has opened the door for all of us to dream again. Freedom is in the air and our right to free speech seems to have been regained. What the students have taught us is to never lose hope. When all doors were shut, the students crushed the barriers and opened them all. A fresh wind of change is now blowing through Bangladesh. New hope, new expectations and, most importantly, new possibilities are coming before us.

We must remember that just as we are good at fighting for justice, defeating the autocrats, and driving the military back to the barracks, so also we have a sad record of not being able to reach the goals that inspired us to fight the oppressor.

We missed the opportunity to build Sonar Bangla, first due to Bangabandhu's fatal mistake of launching BAKSAL and then because of his brutal murder along with his family and the consequent entry of the military to run the country.

The second opportunity was missed with the fall of General Ershad and the restoration of an elected and representative government. There was a well-thought-out plan by all the political parties that came together to topple Ershad's autocratic government. But when BNP came to power in 1991, that plan was ignored. When the Awami League came to power in 1996, it did the same. Thus, instead of the politics of unity, development and peace, we entered a phase that The Economist termed "the battle of the Begums."

Now we have a third opportunity. Usually, nations are not so lucky. How we make the best use of this occasion will be our biggest challenge. The most urgent task is to unify the nation. We must not lapse into the same destructive culture of relegating the interest of the country behind that of the party and putting the interest of the party behind that of the leader. We have suffered enormously because of it, and it is true for us all.

Mahfuz Anam is the editor and publisher of The Daily Star.​

 

[Bilal9]

Multiple Bangladesh Universities have pledged to ban student politics on campus.

https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/dhaka/354622/jnu-bans-campus-politics

https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/354461/kuet-bans-politics-for-students-teachers

 

[Saif]

One significant reform the interim Govt. can carry out is encouraging the political parties to introduce democratic practices within their institutions which will help create democratic environment in the political arena of the country.

When will we democratise the political parties of Bangladesh?

The real test lies in the reform strategies that can steer a country toward justice.

www.thedailystar.net

When will we democratize the political parties of Bangladesh?

Visual: Salman Sakib Shahryar

Revolutions spark dramatic changes, but the real test lies in the reform strategies that can steer a country toward justice. With numerous pressing issues, prioritising the right reforms is crucial. Recent upheavals, such as the Arab Spring, illustrate how popular movements can falter and revert to oppressive practices under new regimes. This makes future protests even more challenging, particularly in poorer nations with less experienced protesters.

Revolutions are rare, and missing the opportunity can mean losing it forever. While a revolution can ignite immense hope, without proper reforms, it risks descending into chaos rather than improving people's lives. Marginalised groups, including workers, farmers, and minorities, have historically been promised the benefits of democracy but have rarely seen these promises fulfilled. Time and again, they have been betrayed by politicians who prioritise self-interest, profiteering, and looting of the state. This has often created distrust and anxiety among the general populace, who lack the means to voice their concerns through legitimate institutional mechanisms.

In Bangladesh, the structure of political parties, characterized by a lack of internal democracy, raises doubts about the long-term success of student-led revolutions. While the student movement has achieved a significant victory, true success remains elusive. Discussing reforms in public institutions like the justice system, law enforcement, and the election commission is insufficient. For lasting justice, peace, and socio-economic well-being, we must prioritise internal democracy within political parties. Internal democracy is a fundamental cornerstone of any democracy, yet Bangladeshi political parties have consistently evaded it, bringing us back to square one repeatedly. For instance, from the fall of the former President Hussain Muhammad Ershad to the fall of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, including the end of the last BNP government, people have been disappointed by autocratic attitudes, governance, and rampant corruption. These parties have often suppressed dissent and alternative voices through intimidation, abductions, and extrajudicial killings, perpetuating a cycle of abuse.

Focusing solely on public institutions while ignoring political party reform risks repeating past mistakes. Without addressing internal party dynamics, the same autocratic and oligarchic behaviours are likely to resurface. Therefore, any reforms initiated by the interim government must prioritize the internal revolutionization of political parties.

The biggest hurdle is the undue influence that a few families exert over their political parties. They hold undemocratic power and monopolise their parties. Sheikh Hasina had total control of her party, with family members and close associates installed in key positions, thereby protecting her dominance, and avoiding criticism. The lack of internal democracy and dialogue has further silenced dissent through state machinery.

To break free, political parties must democratize. They need to be free from dominant family politics, which often function like mafia operations. Leaders should be elected, not selected, and internal election processes must be genuine and observed by an independent body to prevent them from becoming mere box-ticking exercises. An independent body, through constitutional changes, can rigorously scrutinise whether these parties uphold and practice democratic values, providing all members a fair chance to run for leadership at all levels.

Imposing term limits on party leaders and their families is also necessary to prevent entrenched autocracy. For example, the main leader and their family members should only be allowed to run for office twice. Without such limits, the old guards will find excuses to stifle new leaders and maintain their grip on power. The current political vacuum clearly shows that parties have hardly allowed any members to consider running for leadership, let alone pursue the democratisation of their parties.

Furthermore, separating student politics from party politics is essential for genuine reform. Students should have the freedom to engage politically through student union elections, but this involvement should not be swayed by the direct influence of political parties. So far, students have been used by all political parties to pursue their political agendas, rather than being provided with free and fair spaces for dialogue and education.

Decentralising the abuse of power at the local party level is also crucial. Committees in villages and towns, as well as in major cities, should be elected by grassroots members and local public, rather than being handpicked by central leaders who are often disconnected from local issues. This may help reduce the bribery and nepotism rampant within parties and obstruct internal democratisation. Marginalising alternative voices within the parties prevents those who could contribute to greater democratic rights and values from being heard, both within the party and among the public.

All this may sound radical to the existing parties, especially when they are in a hurry for an election, but they must be honest with themselves before convincing the public that the old ways are acceptable. The old politics of violence and revenge are no longer acceptable. Current acts of vandalism against public and private properties, along with communal violence, all indicate why reform is urgently needed as the transition of power to a democratic party hopefully occurs in due course.

Though the interim government and the spirit of the movement face a tough task, they must ensure political parties undergo necessary radical democratic reforms, just like public institutions. Otherwise, history will repeat itself, and the real freedom and well-being of the people will suffer.

At this critical moment, the revolution must serve every citizen, not just a few politicians or oligarchs who seek to govern without accountability or transparency.

Rashedur Chowdhury is professor of business and management at Essex Business School (EBS).​