After a traumatic 18 months, the country has an elected government in place. Of course, there is and always will be the question of how credible the election has been. No one will disagree with the proposition that it has been a non-inclusive exercise of the ballot in Bangladesh. Sooner, rather than later, a fresh election might become necessary to add flesh to the democratic process that has just been re-inaugurated.
That said, citizens are certainly relieved that the lawmakers elected on the BNP’s ticket have stayed away from taking a second oath of office that would have had them affirm their support for a so-called referendum. The BNP leadership has made it clear that the nation’s constitution as it was framed and adopted in 1972 remains paramount, that the foundational basis of Bangladesh’s sovereignty will continue to be underpinned by the constitution.
The very fact of calling a referendum alongside the election by the interim Yunus regime was flawed. It is surprising that those who thought that a referendum was a matter that could easily be railroaded through a vote in the way they believed it could be done on February 12 ought to have gone into the history of referenda first. A referendum is a serious affair. Besides, what has been touted as a July charter was a well-planned attempt to override and then do away with the constitution as it has operated in the country since its emergence 54 years ago.
There is a process through which a referendum is gone through. It is an exercise that can be undertaken in either of two ways. But the first step is the existence of an elected government on which rests the responsibility of decreeing a referendum. Any referendum called by an unelected regime therefore lacks legality or public acceptance. By unelected regimes, we refer to regimes such as administrations imposed through martial law on a country or administrations installed through violations of the constitution.
In simple terms, the Yunus outfit, supportive as it was of its young followers and vice versa, ought to have desisted from calling a referendum that was patently a threat to constitutional politics.
Assuming, though, that the nation should have had the opportunity to probe the nature of the issues raised in the referendum proposal, the regime ought to have followed the standard rules governing referenda around the globe. A referendum, called by a government, entails an opportunity for its advocates and detractors to equally engage in a detailed campaign as a way of putting their arguments across to the electorate.
The referendum proposal placed before Bangladesh’s people did not meet such criteria. No scope existed for extensive discussions on the issues raised in the referendum measure. Worse, the insistence that people could vote “yes” or “no,”without legal experts, scholars, and politicians explaining the merits or otherwise of the referendum across the country raised the suspicion that brazen moves were underway to undermine the constitution.
A referendum is not to be taken lightly. Think back on the Brexit referendum in Britain in 2016. Or travel back to France in April 1969, when a referendum proposal President Charles de Gaulle placed before his people met with a decisive “no.” De Gaulle resigned.
One expects the BNP leadership to ensure that the provisions ingrained in the Yunus administration’s referendum proposal or the misleading July charter are set aside in the larger interest of the continuity of constitutional democracy. There are good reasons why the government that has now taken office would be wise to refrain from taking any action, positive or otherwise, over a measure that the lawmakers of the BNP, along with independent MP Rumeen Farhana, studiously ignored at their oath-taking on Tuesday. The referendum, if one studies it seriously, is a threat to the process of parliamentary democracy in the country.
Parliamentary or cabinet form of government has operated for decades across the world on the basis of convention. No constitution in a parliamentary system recommends that an individual not occupy the office of prime minister for more than two terms. Term limits may apply to systems that are presidential, as in the United States and France.
In contrast, a parliamentary form of government does not place the government, especially the PM, in a term-related straitjacket. A prime minister leaves office when his party loses an election or when his party colleagues are of the opinion that in the interest of the party or the country he needs to go.
The referendum/charter makes a crude attempt here to undermine the law as well as convention. Now observe another disturbing proposal that clearly must be thrown out the window. The president and the PM, it has been suggested by those determined to cast the 1972 constitution to the winds, should have a balance in the exercise of power. That is an untenable suggestion.
Indeed, those who came up with the suggestion were deliberately indulging in sophistry. Exactly how does one explain a balance of power between a president and a prime minister? Supposing that the powers the two individuals will exercise are highlighted through detailed explanations, how does the country handle the stalemate that could or will arise when the president and the PM disagree on issues of vital national interest?
Now observe the argument for a bicameral legislature. On the face of it, it looks good for the simple reason that parliamentary democracies around the globe have been home to such a system. In Bangladesh, though, would such an addition to the parliamentary government produce any benefits for the country, especially if the upper house is an unelected one and yet retains authority to study or adopt or reject measures sent to it after they have been discussed and adopted by the lower house? Such a change would not only be time-consuming but also involve high expenditure.
It must be said that those behind the referendum proposal, unhappy with the present constitution and believing that the August 2024 political changeover was a revolution, were obsessed with thoughts of a change in the nomenclature of the republic. They bandied around the notion that a second republic was necessary.
Is that really the case? Has the parliamentary system collapsed in the country? Yes, the system has run into impediments under different governments over time and that is because of fraught relations between the treasury and opposition benches. But a second republic?
A final point. When might the nation expect a new election? The question arises owing to the fact that at least 30% of the electorate, as stated by Rumeen Farhana, are not represented in the new Parliament. Their party was not in the election raceand was not permitted to take part in the vote. The BNP government cannot close its eyes to this reality. An election must always be broad-based, in the interest of a consolidation of democracy. Perhaps in six months or a year or two years, conditions will necessitate a new exercise of the vote in Bangladesh?
Syed Badrul Ahsan writes on politics, history, and diplomacy. Views expressed are the writer’s own.