Can upper house strike elusive balance of power?

The Constitution Reform Commission has proposed the formation of a bicameral legislature, where the upper house would serve as an “additional supervisory” layer. The aim is to reduce the absolute dominance and unilateral power of the ruling party in the lower house (parliament).

This proposal has been discussed several times with political parties through the National Consensus Commission. Almost all parties have agreed on the formation of a bicameral parliament, but disagreements persist regarding the electoral system and jurisdiction of the upper house. Further discussions are expected on this issue.

Experts point out that simply forming an upper house will not ensure balance. Rather, its effectiveness will depend on how members are elected and what powers the upper house holds.

According to the proposal, the upper house would mainly have authority concerning constitutional amendments. Beyond that, its powers are largely symbolic. Still, the upper house’s authority to review bills, temporarily hold them, and offer recommendations could help better lawmaking. The actual impact will depend on the method of election. The proposed election system for the upper house has drawn objections from several parties, including the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).

As per the commission’s proposal, elections for the lower house (parliament) would follow the existing seat-based system, while the upper house (Senate) would be elected through Proportional Representation (PR).

That means parties would gain seats in the upper house proportionate to the total national vote they receive in the general election for the lower house.

Experts argue that this system would prevent any single party from controlling the upper house. It would also promote balance and broader party representation because it is unlikely for any party to secure an outright majority in the upper house unless it wins more than 50 per cent of the national vote in the lower house elections.

In no credible election in Bangladesh’s history has any party achieved over 50 per cent of the national vote.

Furthermore, parties with no seats in the lower house could still gain representation in the upper house through their vote share.

The Electoral Reform Commission also proposed a bicameral system, recommending PR system for the upper house. However, it additionally suggested including representatives from various social and professional groups.

Under their plan, half of a party’s upper house seats would be filled by party members, and the other half by non-partisan representatives from civil society, academia, science, humanitarian service, labour, women’s rights activists, cultural figures, and marginalised communities. At least 30 per cent of these seats must go to women.

The proposal states that the upper house would not have the authority to introduce legislation. However, all bills except the finance ones passed by the lower house would need to be presented in both chambers.

The upper house couldn’t permanently block any bill. If it delays a bill for more than two months, it would be deemed approved. The upper house could review, approve, or reject bills within the stipulated time. If rejected, it could send the bill back to the lower house with recommended amendments.

The lower house could accept or reject these suggestions wholly or partially. If the upper house rejects the same bill passed in lower house in two successive sessions, the lower can send the bill, if passed for the third consecutive time, to the president without upper house approval.

Even though the upper house won’t have much say in general bills it will have an important role in constitutional amendment bills.

As per the proposal, approval from two-thirds of the combined membership of both chambers would be required for constitutional amendments.

So far, there is general agreement that the upper house would have 100 seats. Most parties, including Jamaat-e-Islami and the NCP, support proportional representation for upper house elections.

Some parties, like Jamaat-e-Islami and Islami Andolon Bangladesh, even favour proportional representation for the lower house.

However, some parties, including the BNP, oppose PR for the upper house. They propose allocating upper house seats based on the number of seats a party holds in the lower house.

They argue that a PR-based upper house would make it nearly impossible for any party to secure the two-thirds majority needed for constitutional amendments. Even making general legislation would be difficult.

Supporters of PR in the upper house argue that BNP’s model would simply replicate the lower house in the upper house. It will stymie the the purpose of balance of power as the ruling party will control the both house.

This issue was discussed during the consensus commission’s dialogue with political parties on 29 June.

On that day, Nagorik Oikya president Mahmudur Rahman said the upper house would just be a replica of the lower house if the seats are allocated the proportionate to the seats.

National Citizen Party member secretary Akhtar Hosen said it makes no sense if the seats of the upper house are allocated based on the lower house and if the upper house has no power, then it serves no purpose.

The constitutional reform commission argued that Bangladesh’s unicameral system, in place since independence, has become increasingly ineffective in fulfilling its constitutional duties.

According to the commission, weak oversight of the executive, poor representation, and structural limitations have hindered parliamentary effectiveness.

It further said the dominance of the executive has limited meaningful parliamentary debate and scrutiny, while opposition boycotts have eroded accountability.

The report highlighted that weak review and rushed lawmaking without sufficient debate have also undermined the unicameral model. This has enabled repressive laws and power concentration, as seen in constitutional amendments like the Fourth Amendment (1975) and the Fifteenth Amendment (2011), which introduced a presidential system and abolished the caretaker government, respectively.

The commission said the current unicameral system failed to ensure broader representation, especially for minorities and marginalised groups. The commission there proposed a bicameral system to do away with structural and institutional weaknesses of the existing system.

Sources indicate that the requirement of a two-thirds majority in both chambers for constitutional amendments is meant to prevent partisan or personal interests from driving such changes. Without single-party control, any government would need to engage in dialogue and build national consensus for amendments.

Professor Nizam Uddin Ahmed, former professor of Chittagong University and parliament researcher, noted that aside from constitutional amendments, the proposed powers of the upper house are mostly symbolic. If upper house members are chosen based on lower house seats, the upper house would merely mirror the lower house.

PR elections are necessary for a meaningful upper house, he said.

He added that objections to PR lack strong justification and that the parties should decide how to nominate members to the upper house.