Political reforms are people's agenda, not of any party

Bangladesh is now going through a critical phase centring on the debates surrounding political reforms and parliamentary election, which will have far-reaching consequences for the country's future. Many people and parties tend to mix up the reform agenda with that of the interim government or those supporting it, which is having a negative effect on the reform process. The bones of contention relate to some fundamental reforms that are critical for forestalling the re-emergence of autocracy or fascism in the country in coming years. These reforms include: formation of a National Constitutional Council (NCC); proportional representation in the upper house of parliament; the method or procedure for amending the constitution; separation of the roles of premiership and leader of the house in parliament; and maximum two terms as prime minister for an individual. All these reforms are crucial for preventing a prime minister from becoming an autocrat in the future.

It is certainly possible to hold a free and fair election without reforming the constitution, the judiciary, the police, bureaucracy and local governance, as evident from the elections that were held under neutral caretaker governments in the past. However, that could not prevent the rise of autocracy after an elected government assumed office, the latest example being the worst of its kind witnessed in history. The reforms needed for rectifying the current autocratic power structure have already been identified. The political parties should now make a written pledge to implement these reforms before taking part in the upcoming election.

The reforms that can be implemented without amending the constitution should be executed on the basis of consensus among political parties before the holding of parliamentary election. This can be done through issuance of ordinances with the political parties remaining pledge-bound to pass relevant laws in the coming parliament based on those ordinances. As for needed constitutional reforms, the elected parliament can initially act as a Constituent Assembly until the required amendments are passed. The interim government can elicit written commitments from the political parties before announcing a roadmap for holding the parliamentary election during the time-frame of December 2025 to June 2026. This is likely to remove uncertainties and ensure much-needed compliance by the political parties even after a newly elected government assumes office next year.

However, questions remain whether the political parties would reach a consensus even after a roadmap for the election is announced. Here comes the imperative for involving the citizens in this whole reform process, so that their voices are not ignored or overridden by the vested interests and oligarchs lurking behind political parties. It is quite apparent that there is not much scope for the common citizens to participate in the debates and discourses taking place between the National Consensus Commission and various political parties. The interim government should now devise mechanisms for ensuring citizens' participation including organisation of opinion polls and even a referendum. Besides, the citizens may be encouraged to put forward their opinions and suggestions through relevant websites and other means. This may create additional pressure on the political parties to reach a consensus on various urgent reforms that are critical for the democratic future of the nation. The political parties also concede that the people are the owners of this land. Consequently, citizens' views and opinions must always be given priority over partisan, egoistic, and self-serving ones coming from those parties.

An eminent and popular Bangla columnist - Mohiuddin Ahmad - has recently made some interesting observations regarding the ongoing reform effort. He says, the identified reform proposals did not suddenly fall from the sky overnight. It has been witnessed throughout our history that nobody wanted to give up power after getting a taste of it. They sought to hold on to power by any means, including through deceit, fraud, and foul-play. We therefore had to digest one farcical poll after another over the past 15 years. This practice must come to an end. 

Many countries of the world have witnessed elected autocracy at different times. These included third-world states like Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea, Egypt, and Zimbabwe. The incumbent presidents always won farcical elections in these countries by "huge margins". But a few could improve the situation by taking lessons from the past. For example, the Philippines and South Korea have introduced constitutional amendments that stipulate a single term for a president. As a result, the democratic process has been strengthened in those two countries. 

The BNP appears to be opposing two terms for a prime minister and separation of the roles of premier, party-chief, and leader of the house in parliament. The common people of Bangladesh can understand at whose behest the BNP leaders are opposing these reforms, but they would never acknowledge this in public for fear of losing their positions. The ousted prime minister Hasina used to boast that stability could not be maintained and development could not materialise if there was absence of political continuity. This implied: she must remain in power without any interruption. The sycophants and stooges around her used to claim that all developments were her contributions. But they refrained from acknowledging that developing a country was the responsibility of any incumbent government, and the money spent for such purposes came from taxes paid by the country'scitizens.

It is not clear on which premises BNP is grounding its opposition to reform proposals like separate roles for the prime minister, the party-chief, and the leader of the opposition in parliament, or maximum two tenures for a prime minister, or representation of parties in the upper house of parliament based on the proportion of votes cast in their favour. Some people may raise questions: Where lies BNP's problem with the time-tested reforms that have yielded positive outcomes in many parts of the world? And why is BNP opposed to holding the local government elections before the parliamentary polls in order to test the capacity of the Election Commission? BNP may cite the examples of other democratic countries where the prime minister's tenures are not limited to two terms. But the comparison should be between similar entities. We are a unique nation where even the living leaders are worshipped, and all kinds of rituals are observed at the tombs of departed ones. BNP is now assuming that it would win the election and its leader would become the prime minister; consequently, the interim government should not do anything that could derail itstotalitarian grip over the power-structurein future. But this is a completely partisan outlook that has nothing to do with the aspirations, expectations, or will of the common people. 

Our experiences demonstrate that the 1972 constitution was written by heeding to the preferences of a single leader. As a consequence, he could become the supreme master of all he surveyed. But the council of ministers was thereby made accountable to the prime minister only, instead of the parliament. That resulted in a distorted form of the Westminster style of governance observed in the United Kingdom (UK) of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Political parties comprise many individuals, where decisions are supposed to be taken through debates and discussions among stakeholders. As reaching a consensus on any issue is a rarity, decisions are supposed to be taken based on majority opinion. This is what the proponents of democracy tell us. But this is seldom practiced in our country by the political parties and their supreme leaders.

Disasters - both natural and manmade - do visit us from time to time. One-eleven was one such occasion when a political tsunami swept the nation. The major political parties were hit hard by it, resulting in the upending of their statuses in many respects. But they did not take lessons from it. However, as a result of a completeabsence of democratic practices during the rule of the ousted Hasina-regime, an upsurge of the masses led by the students took place in July-August 2024, which was comparable to a monsoon-revolution. Now, if we still cling on to the old systems and values, then another disaster is bound to visit us in the not-too-distant future.

The political leaders should be able to read the minds of the people. They should realise that the masses are not ready to listen to their self-serving sermons anymore. The recent mass-upsurge had commenced with a students' movement for removing discriminations in government jobs. But it was transformed into a people's movement for ousting a deeply entrenched autocratic regime when the common citizens came out to the streets in support of their demand. The people emerged victorious in that movement, whereas the political oligarchs and dynastic family-clans in power were defeated. Another notable aspect of that movement was that, it did not take place under the banner of any party, although there was substantial participation of leaders and workers belonging to various political parties. Prior to that, none of the political movements waged by the opposition political parties were successful. This truth must be appreciated and conceded by the relevant parties. It was in fact a unique example of a mass revolt, and all concerned should acknowledge that.

What the chief adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus or his advisers, or the political leaders themselves want is not supremely important. What is, however, most important is whether the initiatives and actions reflect the expectations and aspirations of the common people. Neither the interim government, nor the national consensus commission, nor the political parties have ownership of this land. The over 170 million population of this country are its actual owners. They do not seek a repetition of One-eleven, when, at one stage, people started to believe that none was above the law.But the then caretaker government ultimately left office by sticking to an exit plan, which resulted in terrible sufferings for the common masses during the subsequent 15 years. BNP has now been provided an opportunity to undergo change for its own sake as well as forthe sake of the countrymen. Hopefully, it would not miss this golden opportunity for advancing the common causes of all Bangladeshi citizens, who seek a democratic future for the entire nation.

Dr Helal Uddin Ahmed is a former Editor of Bangladesh Quarterly. hahmed1960@gmail.com