Reforms in politics have been a staple of conversation in large parts of the globe. Sir Keir Starmer now has let it be known that if the Labour Party wins the next general election in Britain, the new government will move for an abolition of the House of Lords.
Starmer's statement rests on his party's belief that the House of Lords, which now has more than 700 members, has of late been filled with cronies and donors friendly with the ruling Conservatives.
Whether or not Starmer is able to have his proposal reach fruition is a question dependent on the next election in Britain. He and his party would clearly like to replace the House of Lords as it exists with an elected chamber, obviously in line with the system at work in the United States, where both the House of Representatives and Senate are directly elected by the people.
But it will not do to forget that back in 1997, when the Labour Party under Tony Blair stormed to power in Britain, it toyed with the idea of bringing about radical changes in the structure of the Lords. In the end, nothing happened.
Starmer's reflections on the House of Lords raise the question of where else structural reforms, in that political sense of the meaning, might have become necessary. We have before us the US Senate, where a hundred senators speak, two each, for the 50 states of the union.
Historically the Senate has done commendable work and a good number of its members have gone on to be presidents and vice presidents of the country. But there have also been moments when its work has been stifled. Think here of a puzzling mechanism called filibustering. Endless hours of speeches, clearly aimed at killing off a proposed piece of legislation, mar the objectives of democracy.
There is that other problem, as exemplified by the Republicans under Mitch McConnell in the final years of the Obama presidency. As majority leader of the Senate, McConnell adamantly refused to consider Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court. He and his fellow Republicans later felt no compunction in cheerfully nominating Donald Trump's conservative nominees to the court.
It is this system, dependent on the whims of the majority leader, which calls for review and revision.
On a larger scale, the method of electing a president through having the election ultimately decided by an electoral college has often stymied American democracy.
There is the popular vote, which is a natural reflection of public opinion and therefore should be the final say in a presidential election. Once the electoral college steps in, democratic governance runs into roadblocks.
American politicians should be seriously giving a thought to overcoming this impediment to the expression of people's opinions.
The Germans have had a satisfactory system in place where elections are contested by parties rather than by individual candidates. A political party will have its spokespersons in the Bundestag, the lower house, once it reaches a 5% threshold. Anything lower does not qualify a party to be represented in parliament.
Elections are also of critical importance in emerging democracies or democracies which often have faced hurdles through an overturning of the constitutional process by dictatorial intervention or have been marred by allegations of rigging and voter intimidation.
While many of these problems yet persist and indeed require time and the political sophistication of societies to be tided over, thoughts should be expended on reforms of the election system.
For starters, members of parliament ought to be elected only when they obtain over 50% of the vote at the polling stations. But, of course, in a field where more than two candidates are in the race, it is likely that the vote will split and no single candidate will go beyond the 50% threshold to qualify for parliamentary membership.
The two leading candidates should then go for a run-off, with those below them in vote strength going out of contention. A runoff, as has been noticed in a number of countries -- in recent times in the French and Brazilian presidential elections -- is evidence of democracy purposefully at work.
Political reforms are an idea which could be considered in Bangladesh's context. With neighbouring India and even Pakistan and a large number of nations in Europe home to two-tiered legislative bodies, an upper and a lower house, it will make good sense for Bangladesh to develop thoughts on the extent to which a second chamber might prove beneficial to legislation.
A good point about parliamentary debate on public issues is that they generate reasoned debate on them, the focus being on what is best for the public. With a second chamber, the debate acquires deeper meaning and eventually the adoption of laws and other measures assumes greater credibility before the country.
Communism in China following the passing of Mao Zedong went for a commendable system of electing the country's paramount leader for no more than two consecutive five-year terms in office, until Xi Jinping came along.
But what remains remarkable about the Chinese system and, earlier, the system in the erstwhile Soviet Union, is a nurturing and growth of leadership from the grassroots, facilitating the gradual rise of politicians to higher levels of leadership.
The process has been healthy, for it is an opportunity for politicians to understand the issues and thereby master the intricacies of governance. In communism, leaders have never been imposed from the top but have always graduated from the lower rungs of the ladder.
Not bad, given that in non-communist political systems all too often a lateral entry into influential positions or even into politics has generally undermined the natural course of political evolution. Politics is a process of refinement, both for those who are active participants in it and those who elect them to their positions.
When Bangabandhu went for a wholesale change in Bangladesh's political structure in January 1975, one of the ways he suggested that aspiring politicians could seek office would be to gain a popular mandate before making an entry into the Jatiyo Sangsad.
Three candidates would be proposed by the national front, the Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League, for a parliamentary constituency, with the most qualified and experienced among them voted to the Jatiyo Sangsad.
Another reform measure in Bangabandhu's politics was the segmentation of the country into 61 districts, with each district to be administered by a governor.
Had the measure taken effect and had constitutional politics not been subverted by the assassination of the Father of the Nation, the nation's political structure and history would have taken a decidedly new course.
Keir Starmer's futuristic views on the House of Lords is food for thought, for it opens up the mind to all the reformist ideas one can bring to bear on what requires to be done in other regions across the globe.
Syed Badrul Ahsan is a journalist and biographer.
