Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami on Sunday said that no individual should serve as prime minister for more than 10 years in their lifetime.
The party presented this view during a media briefing at the Foreign Service Academy in Dhaka, following the National Consensus Commission’s second-round dialogue with political parties.
Speaking to reporters, Jamaat Nayeb-e-Ameer Syed Abdullah Mohammad Taher said: “We proposed that no individual should be allowed to hold the office of prime minister for more than 10 years in their lifetime. This proposal was made in the context of discussions surrounding term limits and tenure.”
Calling for national agreement on the matter, he added: “There is no need to prolong the debate over terms and durations. Except for three parties, everyone else agreed with this point.”
He continued: “A person may serve as prime minister for a maximum of 10 years in total, regardless of the number of terms. We believe this reflects the aspirations of the nation. It should be a collective decision based on national consensus.”
He noted that there are many international precedents for such models, and added: “We believe this approach is necessary for Bangladesh as well. We are close to reaching a consensus on this issue. Two more points will be discussed later this afternoon.”
Earlier, on Tuesday, Jamaat-e-Islami did not participate in the second round of talks, which ended without resolution.
However, following communication from the interim government, the party joined the discussion the following day.
Meanwhile, political parties have yet to reach consensus on several key issues in the ongoing dialogue under the National Consensus Commission.
These include the distribution of seats in the proposed Upper House of Parliament and the formation of a National Constitutional Council (NCC), which is intended to balance the powers of the prime minister.
There is also no agreement yet on the method of electing the president or the procedure for electing reserved seats for women.
Additionally, disputes have arisen over the very definition of the term "consensus," prompting the Commission to consider issuing a clarification.
