The commission for constitution reforms has been gathering public opinion and holding a series of national dialogues regarding the constitution and it seems that they have had good response. Almost every day we find various civil society groups, political parties and intelligentsia deliberating and debating on what they want to see in the constitution.
This enthusiasm of the citizens about the fundamentals of the country's political future, that is, the state and power structure, is perhaps unprecedented. Sources in the reform commission say that they have received overwhelming response online. There is still a week or so left for opinions to be submitted and already over 30,000 recommendations have piled up.
This enthusiasm indicates that the citizens want their views to be taken into cognizance. For a long 15 years the common people had no right to say anything to the autocratic rulers or to question them. They had even lost their right to vote for their representatives once in every five years.
In such a backdrop, the first aspiration of the citizens is to get back their lost rights. They want back their right to vote, to speak out, to question, to assemble, and all their political and economic rights. The citizens need to be empowered and protected in order to get these rights back.
When anyone, or any state institution, violated the rights of the citizens, then the system in place to protect them did not function. Even the court failed to play its due role in protecting fundamental rights. And the rulers who had grabbed power rose above accountability.
In reforming the constitution, it is necessary to boost and protect this empowerment. This can be done in many ways. A model of citizens' empowerment in Switzerland is referendum on any proposed law of the government. If the government wants to draw up a law, within 100 days of the draft law being published, if 100,000 citizens demand by means of a mass petition that a referendum be held, then a referendum on that proposal is compulsory. The Swiss are long habituated to this referendum in their direct practice of democracy. In our country this probably will not be possible to implement any time soon as arranging several referendums in a year may be difficult and costly.
However, there is another model of citizens' empowerment and accountability of people's representatives that has been effective in the United States and several other countries. In the United Kingdom if any MP is convicted of moral turpitude (even if it is not imprisonment but a fine or being suspended from parliament for 10 or more working days), then a mass petition is open for the voters of that constituency if they want that MP's membership to be cancelled or the seat to be declared vacant. The signatures of 10 per cent of the voters of that constituency will render that seat vacant and a by-election will be held there. And if the court sentences him to over 12 months in jail, then his parliamentary membership is automatically cancelled.
"Recall" system is a relatively new addition in the UK. This system was introduced by means of a law in 2010 in the backdrop of a scam involving fake allowances for MPs. This provision exists in Japan, Argentina, Ecuador and a quite few other countries. In the US, there were recall votes against the governor of California too, though the governor managed to survive. In India, this provision has long been in effect in the panchayet system and also in several states where such measures can be taken against the municipal mayor and the city authorities.
This recall system to remove MPs is an effective tool to ensure their accountability and it empowers the voters. Our constitution requires this recall system. The number of registered voters required to petition for this recall can be kept at 20 per cent so that no MP falls prey to the one-sided vengeance of a large rival party.
The news media is another medium to hold the rulers accountable. Questioning power is the most important function of journalism. The Swiss constitution has a separate article on media freedom where it clearly states that independence to publish and broadcast information is ensured for newspapers, radio, television and other media. Alongside prohibiting censorship, it also speaks to safeguarding (news) sources. We hope such a provision can be added to our constitution.
Unquestionably, political parties have a major role in the system of government in any democracy. But the leadership of any political party (elected or unelected) cannot force the people's representatives to sacrifice the interests of the voters in their respective constituencies. We know that there is no practice of organisational democracy in the political parties of our country. The party leaders and central executives are not elected by the members at the grassroots. Yet they are the ones who decide on the party's interests and the members of parliament elected on the party system are bound to vote in favour of those interests. This is determined by the provision in Article 70 of the constitution.
In the party, the politicians would use the excuse of the government's stability in order to defend this article. So even if the majority of voters in the constituency of any MP is opposed to any policy or proposed law, the MP cannot vote outside of the party's decision. This has been seen in the case of the proposed construction of many important installations. Had they been able to vote independently, many of the MPs may have voted against the party decision.
hether it is a rewriting of the constitution or an amendment, no matter what the commission proposes, if an all-party conference can be held in this regard, it will not be impossible to reach a national consensus once again
When the MPs in the committee for the 13th amendment gave their opinions, they later had to go against their own decisions, some claimed. MPs of the religious minority could not even abstain from voting, to stand against having a state religion.
This article should be removed completely. The members of parliament represent their electorate and so should vote in parliament according to the views of the majority in their constituencies. That is only expected. If he disobeys the party leader's directives and votes accordingly, he is expelled from the party. Even so, why can he still not represent the people of the constituency as an independent?
A provision can be added for his reelection through a by-election if he leaves the party and joins another. If the provision for reelection is added in connection to the consequences of a party, this will prevent horse trading, or at least decrease it. Allegiance and accountability to the voters cannot in any way be less important that a government's stability.
In the constitution, the word "republic" is translated in Bangla as "projatantra" which in effect reduces the citizens to "proja" or "subjects". The literal translation of "people's republic" that was reflected at the time the liberation war, "janaganer ganatantra" or the "jana-ganatantrik" adjective, perhaps best reflects the people's democratic mindset.
There is the debate over whether to amend or to rewrite the constitution. Before delving into this debate, all of us should perhaps admit that this constitution failed to provide any solution to any political crisis over the past 53 years. To the contrary, there had been at least six bloody military coups and counter coups. There was one bloodless military coup and several failed military coup attempts.
There were two student-people's uprisings -- in 1990 and in 2024. Other than that, autocratic rule had gripped the country in the name of stability of the country, amid bloody movements and relentless political crises. Unbelievable imposition of force and cruelty was imposed in the name of the rule of law and constitution, in an attempt to subjugate the people.
A large part of the 13th amendment to the constitution has been made non-amendable in order to hold on to power permanently. This is nothing but a ploy to render the citizens powerless. It is better to make a constitution flexible rather than place it on the level of a holy book, so that it can be amended by means of referendum if necessary.
Past experience tells us that all crises can be resolved if the parties reach consensus by means of dialogue among each other. After the 1990 mass uprising, it was national consensus that led to the formation of a caretaker government under the chief justice, the transition from a presidential to a parliamentary form of government, the provision for elections under a caretaker government. So whether it is a rewriting of the constitution or an amendment, no matter what the commission proposes, if an all-party conference can be held in this regard, it will not be impossible to reach a national consensus once again.
* Kamal Ahmed is a senior journalist
* This column appeared in the print and online edition of Prothom Alo and has been rewritten for the English edition by Ayesha Kabir