January 17, 2025
Dhaka – This may be Professor Muhammad Yunus’ most lasting legacy. He provided the poor with the opportunity to escape the shackles of poverty through microfinance. He now gives Bangladesh a chance to break away from all political, governance and institutional constraints and move forward in the direction of democracy, equality, justice and tolerance. In one fell swoop, he has opened up a rare opportunity to make fundamental reforms in some important areas that we have been unable to achieve for the past 54 years.
While we congratulate the Chief Counselor and his team for this great work, we cannot forget to thank the real heroes who opened the doors to all these reforms for us: students, some teachers, intellectuals, civil society leaders, some people. The media and, of course, the public.
Independence in 1971 gave us our first opportunity to build a democratic and egalitarian nation. We were given a second chance when General Ershad fell and democracy was restored after a coordinated mass uprising led by a coalition of political parties. We missed both opportunities. Now, historically speaking, the nation-building role of students is not new. They played a key role in the Language Movement of 1952 and in the pro-democracy and anti-military movements of the Pakistan period in the late 1950s and 1960s. Their role, including the role of our rural youth, in our Mukti Yudhois the most brilliant. They were the vanguard of the anti-Ishad movement in the 1990s and then of the student-led mass movement in July-August 2024, opening new doors to build the Bangladesh dreamed by the martyrs of the liberation war.
When Sheikh Hasina fell, rather than immediately holding elections, it was the right and historic decision to establish a self-corrective process. The idea of setting up a reform committee is the most appropriate. The choice of areas to focus on is the right one. The selection of committee chairs was generally accepted, although the relative absence of female chairs on the committee (with the exception of one) marked a serious lapse. The four committees completed their work within the stipulated time, which also proved their efficiency and sincerity.
Our preliminary examination of the reports submitted by the four committees on January 15 shows that the recommendations are quite substantive, although some appear to be based more on emotion than clear judgment.
The recommendations of the Constitutional Reform Commission are very important. We support the introduction of bicameralism, limiting the Prime Minister's term to two terms, establishing a National Constitutional Council, and reintroducing a caretaker system of government. However, we believe that holding elections every four years could be counterproductive as it would shorten the tenure of elected governments to implement their plans and projects. Furthermore, elections are a costly affair, involving numerous logistical tasks that may feel overwhelming for a country like ours.
Reforms of the electoral system and the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) are crucial. We want to highlight police reform because, in our view, of all state institutions, the police are the most maligned and abused. A study released on January 14 by the International Truth and Justice Project (ITJP) and the Technology Global Institute (TGI) demonstrates how our police force has become a brutal, inhumane and bloodthirsty force, proving There is an urgent need for a complete shift in power from anti-people institutions to pro-people institutions. The most difficult task is to change the police mentality. They have been conditioned to hate demonstrators and view every protester as an “enemy.” They had little training in crowd control other than beating or shooting to injure or kill people.
All recommendations from the four committees, and others expected to be followed, must be subject to genuine national debate. The first thing that needs to be ensured is openness. There should be no name-calling and “labeling” of opinions expressed, which will hinder the real discussion we need. The chief adviser rightly focused on discussions with political parties. We believe further attempts should be made to involve think tanks, specialist rights groups, religious and ethnic minorities etc.
For political parties, they should approach reform proposals in the interests of the country rather than the interests of the party. It is undeniable that after the restoration of democracy in 1991, Bangladesh was ruled by only two political parties – the Awami League (AL) and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) – although both had allies while in power. Under Sheikh Hasina’s fascist rule, we might forget that the BNP ruled us for a decade since Ershad’s fall.
The basic mistake that AL and BNP made during 1991-2006 was that they did not consider Parliament to be the House of the People but an extension of the ruling party since the Finance Minister was in the majority. Indeed, even as a minority, parliament provides the opposition with better opportunities to express dissent. But as far as we are concerned, the unfortunate trend is to boycott Parliament. It always starts with a few hours of strike, then days, weeks, months of boycott, and finally resignation. Our lack of experience in operating within a parliamentary form of constitutional structure – until 1991 we had almost no experience – was the main reason for our failure. The idea that the opposition is seen as a “government in waiting” or a “shadow government” and therefore has a place in the power structure has no place in the finance minister's thought process. The opposition, on the other hand, believes that their goal is to make the government dysfunctional by never cooperating with them in parliament, thereby severely weakening the system. Let us not forget the mass suffering and economic damage caused by continued, irrational insurrection.
The newspaper has published dozens of reports, editorials and columns pleading with the ruling party to give the opposition parties the respect and status they deserve, while imploring the opposition parties not to boycott the House of Representatives. All this is in vain. The result was that parliaments and parliamentary systems were gradually weakened and eventually moved towards democracy.
While so much is being discussed about reforming state institutions, we cannot lose sight of the fact that we also need to reform our political parties.
Professor Yunus’s step in setting up a consensus committee deserves high praise. Dialogue with all political parties is the way forward. However, political parties also have an important responsibility and must treat the entire process seriously and honestly. We urge them to put their concerns on the table, argue with facts and logic, and ultimately reach consensus. Once we are able to do this, the political parties must publicly commit to delivering on their promises, whichever party is elected to power by the people, and bring them all into our governance structure by amending the constitution through resolutions of the new parliament. .
