Bangladesh 2.0 requires a review of the constitution
We need to start deliberations and understand the long-term cyclical implications of preserving our current Constitution. A country that keeps running into constitutional crises every decade cannot be expected to have a rule of law
As a nation, we have just realised the perils of concentrating power in one person. Before we forget the lessons of July 2024, it is important to revisit the foundations of our republic. Unfortunately, our constitutional framework leads the country towards regimes with autocratic tendencies. In just 52 years, this document has failed us multiple times.
The original Bangladeshi Constitution, drafted in 1972, drew inspiration from the Indian and Pakistani constitutions, which were, in turn, roughly based on the British parliamentary system. There was also a strong influence of socialism, owing to the prevailing doctrines of the time and our kinship with the USSR. Back then, the internet had not yet been invented, the Berlin Wall was still standing, and command economies were very much in fashion.
The protection of individual liberties in the original draft was an afterthought. Despite the promised protections in our Constitution, every government in the history of Bangladesh has infringed upon the basic rights of citizens, usually under the pretext of national security and/or communal harmony. In order to truly secure our rights, a much deeper change is needed in the structure of governance.
Our Constitution turns politics into a zero-sum game and compels the winning party to use the government machinery to extend its power ad infinitum—until a revolution of some kind disrupts the process, and we restart from square one with a new government. The transition of power is never orderly because the ruling side has too much to lose. As the Chinese proverb goes, "He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount."
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
The average citizen pays dearly during times of transition. We lose lives, disrupt economic progress, and destroy the environment in which our children are growing up. Such a process seems barbaric in the 21st century and should not be allowed to continue.
The root of the problem lies in concentrating all powers in the hands of the legislative body—the Jatiya Sangsad. This issue is exacerbated by Article 70 of the Constitution, which prevents members of parliament (MPs) from defecting or voting against their own party.
Effectively, this gives total control to the ruling party leadership. Our MPs play a minimal role in the legislative process—their individual role in parliament is somewhat ceremonial. As a country, we lose out because our legislative body does not thoroughly review the details of the laws being proposed.
Even when a party comes to power with a marginal majority, they use the government machinery to benefit their candidates and actively attempt to increase their seats in Sangsad. The ruling party strategically dominates by diverting or depriving resources from various constituencies. They rightfully play for absolute power, and the end justifies their means—however nefarious those means may be.
The losing sides try to defend their positions, but over time, their resources and willpower are depleted. They have to wait for an external force to step in and clean up before regular politics can resume again.
To stop this cycle from repeating, we must make it impossible to gain absolute power. It is in the national interest to design a foolproof system of checks and balances that distributes power among various branches of the government and other institutions.
We have the advantage of studying political systems from around the world and how they have evolved. In India, for example, the multiple state governments have been effective at restricting the power of the central government. In the UK, the monarchy acts as a natural check against absolute power. For most of the UK's democratic history, the monarch had the prerogative to dissolve parliament.
Bangladesh is geographically too small to be divided into even smaller states—and we have not inherited a state-based system to begin with. On the other hand, it is now unfashionable to set up a hereditary monarchy like in the UK, Saudi Arabia, or Japan—and the anti-establishment, free-spirited Bangladeshi mindset makes it extremely risky for anyone trying to set up such a regime. In light of the current political context led by Gen-Z students and a world where freedom of expression is cherished, we could look towards the rather resilient US system.
We should keep a few principles in mind once we embark on this journey of reviewing the Constitution:
Separation of the Executive Branch: The responsibility of the executive branch is to implement the laws of the country and to run the day-to-day operations of the government. The Prime Minister or other ministers should not be members of parliament, nor should they be selected by a parliamentary majority. There should be separate nationwide elections for Prime Minister, allowing voters to judge the merits of each candidate.
Members of Parliament (MPs) should be primarily responsible for deliberating on the laws of the country. It should be their full-time job to formulate legislation and understand public opinion. Their constituency should not expect the MP to drive development—that is the responsibility of the executive branch and local government.
MPs should not be constrained by their political party and must be allowed to vote independently. To prevent further damage, Article 70 of the Constitution must be abolished.
Term Limit for Prime Minister: The role of PM is extremely demanding, and it is wrong to burden a single person beyond a certain period. The realisation that their term is limited should lead to more balanced decisions and reduce the fear of dismounting. Additionally, term limits will keep entrenched interests and sycophants in check. A limited term will also give hope to voters, as change is guaranteed, and should reduce the urge to revolt.
Constitutional amendments should be made more rigid. Even if a political party is able to gain control of both the legislative and executive branches, there must be additional thresholds to effect any change in the Constitution.
Most importantly, we must remember that the Constitution is a document to protect the rights of citizens and carefully create checks and balances at every stage: appointment of justices, powers of the president, legislative overreach, internet blackouts, etc.
Certain readers may argue that a constitutional change is beyond the scope of an interim government. However, we must realise that no elected government, in its right mind, will ever want to change the system that puts them in power. The interim government is perhaps our best hope to bring about this fundamental change. Such an action could be supported by a public referendum.
A full-scale review of the Constitution is well beyond the scope of this article and the capacity of its author. However, we do need to start deliberations and understand the long-term cyclical implications of preserving our current Constitution. A country that keeps running into constitutional crises every decade cannot be expected to have a rule of law.
We need a sensible way out of our zero-sum politics—one that also protects the losers of the political games. To get out of violent politics, the powers of government must be distributed, and we must be vigilant in protecting the rights of citizens. We want no Caesars at all.
Waseem Alim is the founder of Chaldal.com
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard
