How the democratic transformation of the state can happen

Ali Riaz

Vice-Chair, National Consensus Commission & Head, Constitutional Reform Commission

Let me begin by saying that I am not speaking here in my capacity as the Vice-Chair of the National Consensus Commission or as the Head of the Constitutional Reform Commission. This is my personal opinion.

In 2024, a new possibility emerged before us — the possibility of transforming the state. There is now a genuine aspiration for change. The movement of 2024 was, in a sense, a spontaneous uprising. This spontaneity created a certain force, but it did not produce leadership, nor did it give rise to any organised political power. Had that happened, there would have been no need for any commissions.

In Bangladesh, institutions have yet to be properly established. At this moment, two key actions can be identified for a democratic transition. First, the real task is to build and activate these institutions. Second, we must attempt to rally a collective force for a long-term democratic transformation. I see little to no possibility that this can be achieved through the existing political forces.

I want to raise a question: is it possible to move beyond a one-day electoral democracy toward a deliberative democracy? One must go through an electoral democracy. We often refer to our system as a “one-day democracy” every five years. But for the past 16 years — or even longer — we haven't even had that single day. We have no institutions to speak of, not even an election commission.

The reform commissions formed by the interim government have tried to focus on three main areas. First, they attempted to create an elite political settlement. Second, the entire approach was institution-centric — the belief being that institution-building might not bring an immediate solution, but it could open up future possibilities. However, we cannot deny the inherent weaknesses of this institution-centric approach to state transformation. Third is the principle of checks and balances.

There is no disagreement among political parties regarding the need for a caretaker government. But when asked what form it should take, there are rarely any clear answers. The demand for a caretaker government essentially reflects a desire for a reliable process of power transfer.

Badiul Alam Majumdar

Head, Electoral System Reform Commission

We have experienced many instances of “one-day democracy” — electoral democracy. Through this, a system of oligarchic rule has been established, and a criminalised society has emerged. The country's electoral system has been overtaken by corrupt elements. The political sphere has become deeply criminalised. Money plays a major role in this situation. Even to sustain a “one-day democracy,” we must rid the electoral system of criminal influence. Far-reaching reforms are necessary to achieve this.

We must undertake legal, institutional, and structural reforms to bring about a genuine democratic transition in the country.

The major acts of corruption and wrongdoing in our country are often the result of collusion between certain types of politicians, businesspeople, and bureaucrats. We must find a way out of this.

One path toward democratic transition is through civil society. We must activate civil society to explore new ways forward so that we can move toward a true deliberative democracy. We need to engage, raise awareness among, empower, and organise our citizens to do this. The electoral arena must be cleansed of criminal influence to establish the supremacy of the people. At the same time, citizens must be represented in institutions of accountability.

No institution can function properly without a neutral and non-partisan government during elections. Not even our “one-day democracy” ensures this. That is why we have made several recommendations for making a caretaker or interim government effective.

Among the mechanisms proposed to ensure balance and checks in a functioning democratic system is the establishment of an upper house of Parliament. We have proposed that this upper house be formed using a proportional method, with half of the members being affiliated with political parties and the other half being non-partisan.

Imran Matin

Executive Director, BRAC Institute of Governance and Development (BIGD)

We now have a rare opportunity for major transformation due to an unprecedented political upheaval. However, personally, I feel that as time passes, that possibility is steadily narrowing.

There’s an African proverb that goes something like this: “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” But our challenge is that we need to go both fast and far. In the time we have left, we must cover a long distance — and do so quickly. To honor the immense sacrifices that brought us to this critical moment, we must act collectively and in a coordinated manner.

Today’s discussion covers a broad and significant topic. Conversations around this are taking place in many forums. The BRAC Institute of Governance and Development (BIGD) also has a perspective on this. Our core view is that we do not want to limit ourselves to just electoral democracy — we want to go beyond it. Electoral democracy is important, but we must also think beyond elections. We need to understand other forms of democracy and the processes that occur behind the scenes of elections.

This is the main focus of our thinking and work. In this area, we aim to generate knowledge — grounded, theoretical, and action-oriented — and develop proposals that can contribute to this field.

Our key priority is to build what we call “countervailing citizen power.” Because reform is not only a matter of the state — it is fundamentally about the relationship between the state and society. That relationship needs to be transformed. We want to build a countervailing citizen force that is citizen-centric, collective, effective, and structurally grounded. This is a long-term struggle, so we aim to establish some starting points from which this struggle can be carried forward.

Anu Muhammad

Teacher and Rights Activist; Former Professor, Jahangirnagar University

The 2024 uprising led to the fall of a long-standing authoritarian, corrupt, and wealth-plundering regime that had weighed on the people like an immovable burden. This is undoubtedly a significant achievement. Another major gain is that the mass uprising ignited a sense of hope and a search for new possibilities among the people.

Within the uprising, a vision or aspiration for a discrimination-free Bangladesh emerged. In the ongoing debates about how democracy might take shape, we often hear labels like right-wing, left-wing, secular, centrist, or Islamist. But how can there be national unity between those who support discriminatory politics and those who work for equality? Our society is marked by class, gender, religious, and ethnic discrimination. To move toward democracy, these forms of inequality must be addressed. Those who agree on and work toward a path to a more equal society are the true democratic forces.

It is essential to critically examine the structure and character of political parties. For a political party to be national, it must represent all religions, ethnicities, and genders. A party cannot be considered national if it centers only on men, only Bengalis, or only Muslims. There must be internal democratic processes at all levels of the party. Currently, so-called “conferences” are often just opportunities to appoint committees and engage in power-brokering, which goes against democratic principles. Leadership should have age limits and provisions for retirement at the top, to allow for the emergence of new leadership. Participation of women and marginalised groups must be ensured, with at least 30 per cent representation for women.

For a democratic transformation, several factors must be considered seriously. First, a culture of dreaming and expecting better must be fostered. Years of oppression and suppression have diminished people’s hopes. Education, healthcare, and quality of life must be recognised and established as fundamental rights.

Mirza M Hassan

Senior Research Fellow, BRAC Institute of Governance and Development (BIGD)

If we want a strong, inclusive, and sustainable democratic system, we must first understand the true meaning of democracy. Mainstream politicians have reduced democracy to a narrowly defined concept, shaped by their political interests. It is essential to start this conversation now to move beyond this limited view. According to them, democracy simply means representative democracy — more specifically, electoral democracy.
In contrast to this narrative, we want to return to the original meaning of democracy — that democracy is the sovereignty of the people, and elections are merely one mechanism through which that sovereignty is exercised, what we might call indirect democracy. In addition, there are other, more direct forms of democracy — such as referendums, recall procedures, deliberative democracy, and citizens' assemblies. These are not alternatives to electoral democracy but rather serve as its complements.

We need a deeper understanding of the concept of sovereignty of the people. From the perspective of liberal democratic theory, it is often viewed in negative terms — for example, as being not theocratic rule, not technocracy, not autocracy. Instead of accepting this negative framing as absolute truth, we want to approach it in light of changing political and social realities. To define the shape of this sovereignty, we must ask two fundamental questions: Who are ‘the people’? And how will they govern? To answer these questions meaningfully, we must envision a form of sovereignty that is open, inclusive, and based on equality.

What kind of democracy do we want? We envision a mix of both direct and indirect democracy. Within the current reform efforts, the institutional expressions of direct democracy could include: Collective representation of different genders, professions, and ethnic groups in a proposed upper house; Citizen assemblies at the local level that work alongside local government; Independent constitutional commissions in which citizen representatives play significant roles.

Beyond that, we want to see democracy in a broader context — such as: The introduction of community policing to democratise the law enforcement system; The democratisation of gender relations, labour-capital relations, healthcare, education, and public service delivery.
In keeping with the principle of sovereignty of people, we want checks and balances to be established not solely within the state, but also in light of the country’s socio-political traditions, present realities, and the needs of its people. Current reform efforts focus too heavily on a state-centered approach. In contrast, we advocate for a state-society approach — meaning that power must be decentralised not only within the state but also within society. This would lead to the emergence of organised, countervailing citizen power within society. Such power would be reflected when citizen-representatives (not just representatives of citizens) enter different levels of the state and directly participate in state decision-making processes.

Mahin Sultan

Member, Women's Affairs Reform Commission

We have emphasized women’s civil rights and human rights.
For women and other marginalised groups, democracy is extremely important, as it provides a platform to express diverse perspectives, needs, and interests. When we began our work with hope and enthusiasm, we later found that the definition of "inclusiveness" varied widely from person to person. In our commission’s recommendations, we have highlighted several key issues. For example, we emphasised the need for constitutional recognition of people of different genders, languages, religions, and ethnic communities. We also stated that religion should belong to individuals — not to the state. If we are to establish civil rights, we cannot prioritise any single religion.

Women elected to parliament should be able to express independent views. While they will represent their political parties, they should also advocate for women's issues. There needs to be a sense of accountability to women in society. In many countries, it has been observed that when women politicians are connected to women’s civil society organisations, they are able to speak more strongly and assertively. Their roles become more powerful and effective.

If an upper house of parliament is formed, it should include representation not only from women's organisations but also from various other groups in society. We have proposed the creation of an independent constitutional commission for women. Although this has not been widely discussed, it is a critically important issue.

Local government is the foundation for democracy and the realisation of civil rights — especially for women. In local government institutions, women must be able to voice their concerns equally and play an active role in decision-making. This needs strong emphasis.

In the National Consensus Commission, only the opinions of political parties are being considered. We have not been given the opportunity to present the report of the Women’s Rights Commission. Similarly, the voices of ordinary citizens are not being included in the work of the Consensus Commission. This lack of space for our input is deeply concerning and disappointing.

Asif Mohammad Shahan

Professor, Department of Development Studies, University of Dhaka

When we talk about changing the power structure, we usually refer to altering the constitutional provisions or the parliamentary framework at the central or national level. However, if we only change these rules without building the necessary institutions to implement them, such changes will be meaningless.

For constitutional institutions to function independently, certain key conditions must be met — foremost among them is autonomy. By autonomy, we mean administrative independence — the freedom to operate through their own processes. Additionally, these institutions must have the ability to function free from political influence. There must also be mechanisms for effective public engagement with these constitutional or accountability institutions. Right now, we do not see any system that enables people to bring their issues to these bodies. For example, if someone experiences a human rights violation and does not receive a resolution from the police, then it should fall to the Human Rights Commission to address the issue. But for that to happen, there needs to be a connection between the people and the commission.

We also need a structure for an organised public voice. This voice can emerge through mechanisms such as citizen assemblies, trade unions, community policing, or citizens’ committees. When people are denied their rights or access to services, these organised platforms should be able to present grievances to the independent institutions. This, in turn, will create an environment of accountability for the institutions themselves. If a complaint is not addressed by the relevant body, a parliamentary standing committee should be able to hold it accountable — for instance, by asking the Human Rights Commission: “A complaint was filed with your office. What action did you take?”

Broadly speaking, we are proposing an alternative structure — one that empowers citizen organisations on the one hand and ensures the effectiveness and accountability of constitutional institutions on the other. This may not be a wholly radical transformation, but it could be a meaningful step toward a more citizen-focused, democratic system — working from within the existing framework.

Chowdhury Saima Ferdous

Member, Public Service Commission, and
Professor, Department of International Business, University of Dhaka

We need to reflect on how democratic values can be established, rebuilt, or reimagined. The first requirement for practicing democracy is the empowerment of citizens. We often speak about rights, but rarely about responsibilities. Why did Bangladesh have to face a bloody mass uprising? Do we truly understand where our responsibilities and failures lay?

Freedom of expression is essential for citizen empowerment. Democracy cannot function in silence. Elections without accountability are also meaningless. But what do we now see in the name of freedom of expression? Does it mean saying whatever one pleases? Insulting, harassing, defaming, or trolling others on social media—this is not freedom of expression. It contradicts the core values of democracy.

In the past, the education system encouraged the practice of debate. Debate taught us to argue with reason, which fosters tolerance. What do we see now? Sarcastic remarks, mockery, personal attacks. This aggressive and toxic culture is being promoted across various sectors of society. We were taught to argue logically, and to accept others' opinions. Accepting a different view is not a defeat—it is growth. In other countries, children are taught parliamentary procedures from an early age. Why don’t we do that? Democratic understanding must be integrated into our education system—not only in theory, but also in practice.

How should women's political empowerment be ensured? Through reserved seats or direct elections? We support direct elections. Whatever the method, standards of merit and competence must be defined. Without such standards, promoting unqualified individuals becomes an embarrassment for women themselves.

Prashanta Tripura

Country Director, The Hunger Project; Former Professor, Jahangirnagar University

Democratic transformation—or the transformation of society—is a continuous and enduring process. It cannot be completed in three or six months. The key question is how we make use of the time we have now.

What is the current state of rights and services in Bangladesh post-July? A democratic transformation is not something that can happen instantly. When we talk about reform, what do we really mean? Are we referring to reforms on paper, or changes in our behaviour and way of thinking? These are issues that deserve discussion. Among those of us participating in this conversation, there is a shared sense of urgency. Personally, I feel that what we are witnessing is a failure of our generation. It was the new generation that gave a push through a mass uprising—but are they now falling into the same cycle as we did? We want to overcome our failures and disillusionments through a sense of renewed purpose.

The democratic transformation of the state and society is a dual process. If today’s title were “The Democratic Transformation of Society,” we might have approached the discussion differently. Without social transformation, no lasting transformation of the state is possible. We must practice democracy in our families, in our institutions. If our focus remains solely on the center of state power, we will keep circling back to the same place.

To meet this challenge, patience is essential. We must not assume that time is running out. In some areas, we will need to start over again and again — from the very beginning.

Fazlul Hoque

Former President, Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BKMEA)

Sometimes I wonder whether we are truly ready for democracy. As a society, are we really responsible enough? This question has become even more pressing in the aftermath of the mass uprising in 2024.

Today, I am speaking here as a representative of the business community. Over the past two decades, I’ve witnessed the decline of business associations. And for that, I hold ourselves more accountable than the government. We’ve been competing—not to lead with ideas or reforms, but to see who can shout slogans like "Zindabad" or "Joy Bangla" fastest to gain favour and benefits. This kind of competition has pervaded all spheres.

In our country, we haven’t lacked laws—but what we have lacked is their fair and practical enforcement. That’s where autocracy and criminalisation have taken root. My personal view is that we must advance by achieving small, incremental goals. What we failed to accomplish over the last five decades cannot realistically be achieved in a few months. We have to move forward step by step.

The reform commissions currently at work seem largely disconnected from the general public. This detachment could become a barrier to democratic transformation and the broader development process. Over time, people may feel that these efforts do not reflect their own agenda. Therefore, greater interaction and engagement with the public is essential. Broader inclusion of citizens would make the development process more effective and meaningful.

Taslima Akhter

Member, Labour Reform Commission

In discussions on democratic transformation, the questions that repeatedly come up are freedom of expression and accountability. During last year's mass uprising, the central demand for unity was to ensure both freedom and accountability. These issues must be addressed through the practice of free expression, legal reforms, and judicial mechanisms.

Within the Labour Reform Commission, we’ve discussed what can be done in terms of laws, institutions, and cultural change. There have been debates over the right of workers to organise, legal recognition, an independent judiciary, and freedom of expression. We have developed recommendations on worker accountability, wage structures, the nature of tripartite committees, and women's participation.

If the condition of workers remains weak, democratic transformation will also be hindered. Ultimately, everything comes down to political decisions. In the Labour Reform Commission, we have raised not only issues of law, institutions, and accountability, but also cultural change. For example, addressing workers using the respectful form of ‘you’ (“apni”) instead of the informal ‘tui’ or ‘tumi’. Even such a small change has faced significant resistance.

At the international level, in the context of global labour discourse, terms like “decent work” or “decent wages” are commonly used. In the Labour Reform Commission, we proposed adding the word “dignified” to “decent,” bringing a meaningful shift. We also recommended replacing the word “mohila” (a commonly used but somewhat outdated term for woman) with “nari” (a more respectful term), recognising not just women and men but also other genders, and using “multi-ethnic” instead of the term “indigenous” (“adivasi”).

*This roundtable discussion, originally published in Prothom Alo online and print editions, has been rewritten in English by Rabiul Islam