In search of a responsible opposition party

The fall of long-standing authoritarian rule has created an opportunity for state reconstruction. The July mass uprising was not only about a change of power but also about establishing a new framework for democratic governance. In this context, the July Charter and the activities of the reform commissions became crucial. With enthusiastic participation from political parties, the primary goal of these initiatives was to prevent excessive centralisation of power in the governance system.

However, a fundamental question has largely been overlooked in these discussions—how will parliament function if there is no responsible, institutional, and meaningful opposition? Democracy is not merely a process to reduce the ruling party’s power; it is a system that keeps the competition for power within rules, institutions, and ethics. In such a system, the opposition is not a marginal element but one of the main pillars of democracy. Without a responsible opposition, parliament fails to fulfill its constitutional duties. Therefore, it is time to reflect on transforming the post-election political culture.

There are mainly two reasons why opposition parties in Bangladesh often operate outside parliament. First, their institutional opportunities to play a meaningful role in parliament are limited and uncertain. Opposition parties are often relegated to the role of passive spectators, dependent on the government’s “grace” or “courtesy.”

There is minimal proper consultation with them before passing important laws, their role in parliamentary committees is often merely formal, and their presence in national policy-making forums is highly marginal. This culture dates back to colonial times and has continued post-independence, turning parliament into almost a rubber-stamp institution. Since 2008, parliament has increasingly taken on a one-party character, with the 2014 parliament lacking meaningful voter representation.

Second, there is a historical culture of non-cooperation in Bangladeshi politics. When opposition parties know that their voices will not be heard in parliament, their amendment proposals will not be seriously considered, and they have no effective authority to monitor government misconduct, they turn to the media and the streets as their primary political platforms. During the struggle against authoritarianism, the streets were a major tool of democracy. However, in a functioning democratic system, the streets cannot remain the central arena of regular political competition.

Stable and mature democracies worldwide show that a responsible opposition grows through clear institutional structures. The rights and responsibilities of parties are well-defined, safeguarded, and actively practiced.

In the Westminster system, the opposition is not only given the opportunity to criticise but also forms an alternative government modeled as a “shadow cabinet.” Shadow ministers regularly and professionally review and critique the work of their corresponding ministries. Weekly “Prime Minister’s Questions” sessions hold the government directly accountable. Arrangements like an “Opposition Day” compel discussion and voting on issues raised by the opposition.

Crucially, the chair of the “Standing Committee on Public Accounts” comes from the main opposition party. This ensures transparency in government financial activities and requires the opposition to play a cooperative role in the national interest. Important bills are often referred to the relevant parliamentary committees before being introduced in parliament. Opposition members conduct detailed reviews and engage in dialogue with the government. This process, along with the inclusive environment in lawmaking, transforms the culture of opposition from a destructive stance to a constructive one.

In the context of Bangladesh, a culture of mutual accountability, respect, and compromise for the national interest is essential. At the same time, building a responsible opposition requires a clear, widely recognised, and legally supported framework.

Otherwise, the inevitable consequence of this vacuum plays out outside parliament. Opposition politics shifts to the streets, and political conflicts move from principled debate to violence, blockades, and economic disruption. The social and economic costs of this fall disproportionately on ordinary people, particularly day labourers, small business owners, and workers in the informal sector.

Simply giving the opposition membership in a few committees is not enough. Leadership of key committees of national importance could be assigned to the opposition on a rotational basis or according to a clearly defined allocation principle. This right comes with corresponding responsibilities. The opposition must maintain professionalism in committee work, follow parliamentary rules and decorum, and participate in constructive discussions while protecting national interest and confidentiality.

In every parliamentary session, a designated and sufficient period could be reserved for the opposition to provide full, uninterrupted scrutiny of government policies and decisions. During this time, the ruling party cannot impose obstacles or threaten with numbers. It is the government’s responsibility to provide reasoned, written responses, acknowledge the relevance and importance of the critiques, and honestly consider the opposition’s rational proposals.

Mandatory, timely, and confidential pre-consultation with the opposition could be introduced on matters of national importance. For issues that determine the country’s future—such as constitutional amendments, war or peace-related foreign policy, or declarations of national emergencies—the government should be legally obliged to engage in trusted dialogue with the opposition. Such a system works only if the opposition shares responsibility for national decision-making.

In current political reform discussions, focusing only on “balance of power” or “electoral systems” tells only half the story. Equally important is the “balance of responsibility” and the “transformation of parliamentary culture.”

For a functional, vibrant parliament and sustainable democracy, both the government and the opposition must recognise that they are part of the state; in a sense, both are part of the government. Ultimately, both are accountable to the sovereign people.

The true strength and legitimacy of the opposition is measured not merely by street protests but by the depth of their reasoning in parliament, the practicality of their alternative policies, and their responsible behaviour during national crises.

Bangladesh’s democracy will only advance when the opposition not only acts as a “counterforce” to the government but also sees itself as an essential partner in national progress, stability, and prosperity. A responsible opposition can push the government to become more efficient, transparent, and people-friendly, while a responsible government can encourage the opposition to develop constructive alternative proposals.

An effective parliament requires the coexistence of a strong government and a responsible opposition. Weakening one to strengthen the other is not democracy; it gives rise to a new form of authoritarianism. Through this mutuality, parliament can become the centre of political debate, accountability, and alternative thinking, allowing the 2026 elections to mark a true democratic advancement.

#Dr. Rashed Al Mahmud Titumir is Professor, Department of Development Studies, University of Dhaka.
*The opinions expressed are the author’s own.

*This article, originally published in Prothom Alo print edition, has been rewritten in English by Rabiul Islam