BNP rejects government’s request on upper house

The interim government requested Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) to accept the proposal regarding the formation of the upper house of the parliament under the proportional representation (PR) system. However, the BNP rejected the proposal.

Sources in BNP and the government confirmed that one of the advisers placed the request on behalf of the government during the chief adviser’s meeting with BNP on 31 August. The chief adviser also requested the party to consider the issue.

Asked about this, a BNP leader said on condition of anonymity that the issue came up during the meeting on 31 August. They said the issue was already settled at the consensus commission and their party would accept if there is any scope to implement the reform proposals in compliance with law and the constitution now.

Although there was consensus in discussions with political parties under the National Consensus Commission on forming a bicameral parliament, there are differences of opinion regarding the election or formation method of the upper house.

The commission decided that the upper house, or Senate, would have 100 members. These 100 members would be elected through the system of proportional representation (PR), based on the votes bagged in the lower house elections.

In other words, a party would gain seats in the upper house proportionate to the number of votes it received across the 300 constituencies. However, the BNP and NDM ( Nationalist Democratic Movement) expressed dissent, stating that seats in the upper house should instead be allocated on the basis of the number of seats a party wins in the lower house.

Relevant people say if the upper house were to be formed in line with the BNP’s demand, it would simply become a reflection of the lower house. Such a formation would be unnecessary and a waste of resources. The purpose of establishing the upper house would not be fulfilled in that case. The proposal for an upper house has been made to bring balance to the legislature and to make it more difficult for a single party to amend the constitution at will.

Consensus and decisions were reached with political parties through discussions over a total of 84 proposals made by six reform commissions.

These are being compiled into the July National Charter. Among them, the BNP has dissented on nine key proposals, including the method of electing the upper house.

According to sources in the government, political parties and the Consensus Commission, differences are evident over the implementation process of the July National Charter, particularly between the BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami as well as the National Citizen Party (NCP). The Consensus Commission has recently held several informal meetings on the issue.

An informal meeting was held last month at the residence of an adviser to the interim government, attended by these three parties, several other parties, representatives of the Consensus Commission, and multiple government advisers. However, no consensus was reached there either.

In June, BNP’s acting chairman Tarique Rahman held a meeting in London with chief adviser professor Muhammad Yunus. Since then, Jamaat and the NCP have grown suspicious, wondering whether BNP has reached a special understanding with the government.

They believe that since the London meeting, the government has been prioritising BNP’s demands on reforms and other issues. BNP, too, has gradually been taking a firmer stance on the question of reforms.

According to relevant sources, Jamaat-e-Islami and the NCP were displeased with the July Declaration issued by the interim government on 5 August. They believe it prioritised BNP’s demands. Although they accepted it at the time in the greater interest, they are unwilling to compromise on the question of the July National Charter.

Both Jamaat and NCP want the July Charter to be implemented before the election. The issues on which BNP has disagreement must also be implemented in line with the Consensus Commission’s decisions, as those decisions were made based on the opinions of the majority of parties. If the method of implementing the July Charter does not align with their expectations, the two parties are considering boycotting the election.

The Jamaat Islami wants the July Charter to be implemented through presidential proclamation. Meanwhile the NCP has informed the commission in writing that they believe the July Charter should be implemented through a directly representative body. For this, the formation of a constituent assembly to provide the constitutional framework for implementing the proposed reforms and charter.

On the other hand, BNP feels the constitution-related proposals cannot be implemented through any legitimate means other than the upcoming parliament. They support implementing these proposals within two years of the formation of the next parliament and have informed the commission accordingly. Overall, due to the differences of opinion among political parties, the July Charter remains stalled, increasing uncertainty over the election.

Professor Ali Riaz, co-vice-chair of the National Consensus Commission, told Prothom Alo that, overall, they will provide recommendations on the implementation procedure of the July Charter. Discussions have taken place with experts, and the parties have also given their opinions, including suggestions such as holding a referendum.

Ali Riaz said that regarding the decisions where there is dissent, including the formation procedure of the upper house, the Consensus Commission will seek expert advice on whether a referendum can be held. They hope that, based on the experts’ opinions, a feasible procedure can be found.

The proposal for introducing bicameral parliament came from the Constitution Reform Commission. The upper house of the parliament would be an “additional supervisory” layer. The Reform Commission proposed forming a bicameral legislature with the idea that it would reduce the absolute dominance and unchecked power of the government in the lower house of parliament.

In its report, the Constitution Reform Commission highlighted the reasons for proposing a bicameral parliament, stating that since independence, Bangladesh has operated a unicameral legislative system. However, its effectiveness in fulfilling constitutional responsibilities has gradually come into question.

It further states that the unicameral system has been criticised for hastily passing weak laws without adequate review or effective debate. The lack of parliamentary oversight and control allowed the ruling party opportunities to make oppressive decisions, facilitating arbitrary legislation and centralisation of power.

Examples cited include the Fourth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. In 1975, the Fourth Amendment replaced the parliamentary system with a presidential system and introduced one-party rule instead of multi-party politics. Similarly, in 2011, the Fifteenth Amendment abolished the caretaker government system during elections.

Relevant sources say the provision that a constitutional amendment bill must pass both houses with a two-thirds majority was proposed with the aim of making the amendment process somewhat difficult. However, after discussions with the parties, it was decided that the constitutional amendment bill must pass the upper house by a simple majority. Even so, it would remain difficult for the ruling party to amend the constitution unilaterally.

Relevant sources say that, according to the Commission’s decision, no single party will have unilateral control if the upper house is formed. The upper house will have comparatively larger representation from multiple parties and will be balanced. This is because, under this system, it is virtually impossible for any party to achieve a simple majority. To secure a simple majority, a party would need to receive more than 50 per cent of the votes in the lower house elections. No party has ever obtained 50 per cent of the votes in any widely accepted election in the country. On the other hand, even if a party does not win any seats in the lower house, it may still gain representation in the upper house based on its proportion of the vote.

BNP also mentioned the formation of an upper house in their 31-point reform proposal. Salahuddin Ahmed, a member of BNP’s standing committee, recently told Prothom Alo in an interview that they did not propose the upper house with the aim of balance. Their thinking was that the nation would benefit if eminent individuals from various sectors of society were given a place in the upper house

The upper house will review proposed legislation from the lower house. It will have no power to enact laws on its own. However, it may propose legislation to the lower house on any matter of national importance. All bills, except the budget and confidence votes passed in the lower house, must be presented to the upper house. The upper house cannot permanently block any bill. If it delays a bill for more than two months, the bill will be considered approved by the upper house.

The upper house can return bills with recommendations for amendments to the lower house. In that case, the lower house may accept or reject the proposed amendments in whole or in part. If a returned bill is passed again in the lower house, it will be sent for the president’s approval without needing upper house consent. Any constitutional amendment bill must be passed in the upper house by a simple majority.

Nizam Uddin Ahmed, a researcher on parliament and former professor at Chittagong University, told Prothom Alo that the decision of the consensus commission regarding the structure and powers of the upper house is very good. It will create a balance in parliament. No party will be able to amend the constitution at will; the opposition must be convinced of the rationale.

However, the way BNP proposes forming the upper house is unreasonable. It would create a majority of the same party in both houses. Forming the upper house this way would be pointless and a waste of money.