–Md Safiul Alam Prodhan–

Since the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s government through a mass uprising on August 5, various political parties, organizations, and civil society representatives have been demanding ‘state reform’. In such a situation, they are also suggesting amending the Constitution first to make this reform. Some say that at the moment, state reform is not possible without rewriting the constitution. On the question of’state reform’, analysts cite the example of Sheikh Hasina’s 15-year rule. They say that the current constitution of Bangladesh has given the prime minister or the head of government some powers through which anyone sitting in that position has the opportunity to become a dictator.

In the early 1990s, Bangladesh witnessed the fall of dictatorship and the beginning of a new era of democracy. But the effective parliament expected by the people has not yet been established in that sense. Under the existing system, a monopoly can be observed in the parliament of each of those who formed the government through popular elections in the parliament. Two reasons can be identified for this dominance: firstly, the lack of freedom of party MPs to vote against their own party as a result of Article 70 of the Constitution; secondly, the absolute majority of one party in Parliament in the FTPT method.

For these two reasons, the majority of the political parties have the opportunity to amend the constitution in their own way in the interest of their party and have implemented the amendment despite public support and widespread opposition from the opposition. The question arises as to what is the effectiveness and usefulness of the parliament if a political party changes the constitution for the sake of its party, despite the absence of public support and opposition and the absence of free voting rights of the government party MPs?

People are the foundation of democracy and the foundation of democracy. People exercise their power through elections. There is parliamentary democracy in Bangladesh. In a parliamentary democracy, two different electoral systems are followed. One is the simple suffrage method, that is, the election to determine the majority of the votes received, which is called the election of ‘First Past the Post’ (FPTP) method. The second method is called proportional representation.

The method of electing representatives in Bangladesh is called the ‘Winner Take All’ or FPTP method. Its main drawback is that there is a serious mismatch between the percentage of votes received by a party and the number of parliamentary seats won. In this system, if there are more than two candidates in any seat, the representative is elected without getting 50 percent of the votes. In this regard, the matter can be further clarified by giving some examples of the last elections in Bangladesh.

For example, an analysis of the results of the 8th parliamentary election in 2001 shows that the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) won 193 seats in that election. The Awami League, on the other hand, won only 66 seats. The gap between the two parties’ parliamentary seats is so large that the Awami League, as the opposition party in the parliament, does not have much scope to play an effective role in formulating or amending the law and the constitution. But if the parliament was formed in proportion to the total number of casting votes (proportional representation) in the whole of Bangladesh, the character of the parliament would be completely different. Proportionally, BNP got 123 seats (40.97%) and Awami League got 120 seats (40.13%).

Similarly, analysing the results of the 9th parliamentary election in 2008, it was found that Awami League won 230 seats and BNP only 30 seats in that election. But if the parliamentary seats were distributed proportionately, the Awami League would get 147 seats (49%) and the BNP would get 100 seats (33.20%). In the fifth parliament of 1991, Awami League got 88 seats and BNP got 140 seats. But if the allocation was proportionate, the Awami League and BNP would have 90 and 92 seats, respectively. In the 7th parliament of 1996, Awami League got 146 seats and BNP got 116 seats. If the seats were distributed proportionately, the Awami League and BNP would have 112 and 100 seats, respectively. It is, therefore, clear that the distribution of seats and the winners in the existing parliamentary system is not a true reflection of the votes received by the country as a whole.

In this system, small political parties that have a small popular support in all countries but may not win parliamentary seats will also have the opportunity to represent them in parliament if they have a proportional representation system. By reforming the election system of the National Assembly of Bangladesh, arrangements can be made for the distribution of seats on the basis of the votes received. The party that gets 50 percent of the votes cast will get 150 seats, and the party that gets one percent of the votes will get three seats. This will show a balance of representation in the national parliament.

As a result, no party can take any unethical decision exclusively in Parliament. However, the question that arises most in this system of proportional representation is the ‘distribution of parliamentary seats’ i.e., how to determine who will represent which seat? For example, in the 8th parliamentary election in 2008, BNP won 30 seats, but if you calculate the proportion, they would have got 100 seats. Now in the remaining 70 seats, the BNP representatives who will be nominated for the seat may not have received the majority of votes in that seat. So what’s the solution?

A good solution in this regard could be the introduction of a bicameral legislature. One is the upper house, and the other is the lower house. The lower house will have 300 members, and it will be formed by direct popular vote in the ‘First Past the Post’ (FPTP) system. The members of this house will assist the local government in the development work in their traditional seats, including legislative amendments and accountability of the administration. On the other hand, the upper house will have 100 members.

Each political party will announce the names of 100 members before the election to the lower house. They can be senior former parliamentarians, eminent educationists of the country, doctors, engineers, judges, lawyers, representatives of minority people, businessmen, etc. The members of this house shall be elected in proportion to the votes cast in the elections to the lower house. That is, if Awami League gets 35% of the casting votes, then their members in the upper house will be 35; if BNP gets 36% of the votes, then their members will be 36. If Charmonai’s Islamic Movement gets 3% of the vote nationwide, they will have 3 members.

A member of this upper house will be an honorary post. They will not have a specific region and will not be nominated more than twice. The only function of the Upper House will be to review and approve the laws and the Constitution passed by the Lower House. A two-thirds vote of the members of the upper house is required. As a result, if any law is made in the lower house unnecessarily and considering the party’s interests, it will be stuck in the upper house. But if the amendment of the law or the constitution is for the benefit of the state, it will certainly not create obstacles in the upper house. As a result, an effective and welfare-orientated parliament will be established.

In the end, I want to say that the new awakening created among the people through the anti-discrimination movement should be retained by the future state and government. Whether the constitution is amended or rewritten, it is the people’s hope that it will ensure fair and participatory elections and an accountable and meaningful government.

The writer is Lecturer, Department of Political Science, Notre Dame College, Dhaka