The challenge of constitution amendment
Tuesday, 12 October 2010
Amirul Islam
A constitution should ideally be drawn up with 'consensus' between the diverse political, economic and social forces so that none may object to its provisions in the future. Why this unity is important should be obvious. Sweeping changes brought about in the constitution with the requisite strength in the legislature may be temporarily possible and attractive. There is, however, no certainty in politics. Today's politically ascendant party with overwhelming strength in the legislature may lose support among the people and become only a small opposition. In that event and if its rival party comes to power with similar overwhelming majority and decides to do away with constitutional changes effected by its predecessor, then nothing can stop it.
But this game of constitutional amendments, their rejection subsequently and attempts afresh for amendments, all these can only keep a country on perpetual political strife and tension. This state of affairs cannot be desirable for a country's sustainable all-round progress in the longer term. Thus, it should always be the lookout of the leaders of the parties -- who really have the lasting good of the country in their hearts -- to go for constitutional amendments that would stand a chance of enduring over the long haul.
Indeed, there are instances of such cooperation between the political parties in the history of Bangladesh. The twelfth amendment of the Bangladesh Constitution in 1996 was passed with lawmakers of both the BNP and the Awami League voting heartily for it. This amendment changed the system of government from presidential system to parliamentary one. The following thirteenth amendment was passed by the sixth parliament similarly in a united manner that provisioned for the establishment of a caretaker government in between periods when parliament got dissolved for the holding of elections until the holding of the national elections and transfer of power to an elected government.
Both amendments were landmarks in the constitutional history of Bangladesh. The twelfth amendment reflected and confirmed the national aspiration with hardly any objection that democracy would be safer under a parliamentary and relatively liberal form of government than a presidential one with more power concentration in the hands of an individual that could turn despotic. The provision for a neutral caretaker government was designed as a safety valve to enable peaceful and fair holding of elections under a non-party caretaker government the results of which all or nearly all would be obliged to accept. It was thought of as an instrument to maintain continuing political stability when instability and charges of unfairness arising from elections conducted by party government, used to be very destabilising factors.
The present government is set to amend the constitution. But it is not yet known what changes will be brought in the constitution though there are court verdicts declaring the fifth and the seventh amendments as unlawful and unconstitutional. The worrying part is that the main opposition BNP has refused to join the all-party parliamentary committee to review the constitution. Thus, it has become doubtful whether the possible amendments to the constitution would pass the criterion of consensus and broad-based national acceptance.
A constitution should ideally be drawn up with 'consensus' between the diverse political, economic and social forces so that none may object to its provisions in the future. Why this unity is important should be obvious. Sweeping changes brought about in the constitution with the requisite strength in the legislature may be temporarily possible and attractive. There is, however, no certainty in politics. Today's politically ascendant party with overwhelming strength in the legislature may lose support among the people and become only a small opposition. In that event and if its rival party comes to power with similar overwhelming majority and decides to do away with constitutional changes effected by its predecessor, then nothing can stop it.
But this game of constitutional amendments, their rejection subsequently and attempts afresh for amendments, all these can only keep a country on perpetual political strife and tension. This state of affairs cannot be desirable for a country's sustainable all-round progress in the longer term. Thus, it should always be the lookout of the leaders of the parties -- who really have the lasting good of the country in their hearts -- to go for constitutional amendments that would stand a chance of enduring over the long haul.
Indeed, there are instances of such cooperation between the political parties in the history of Bangladesh. The twelfth amendment of the Bangladesh Constitution in 1996 was passed with lawmakers of both the BNP and the Awami League voting heartily for it. This amendment changed the system of government from presidential system to parliamentary one. The following thirteenth amendment was passed by the sixth parliament similarly in a united manner that provisioned for the establishment of a caretaker government in between periods when parliament got dissolved for the holding of elections until the holding of the national elections and transfer of power to an elected government.
Both amendments were landmarks in the constitutional history of Bangladesh. The twelfth amendment reflected and confirmed the national aspiration with hardly any objection that democracy would be safer under a parliamentary and relatively liberal form of government than a presidential one with more power concentration in the hands of an individual that could turn despotic. The provision for a neutral caretaker government was designed as a safety valve to enable peaceful and fair holding of elections under a non-party caretaker government the results of which all or nearly all would be obliged to accept. It was thought of as an instrument to maintain continuing political stability when instability and charges of unfairness arising from elections conducted by party government, used to be very destabilising factors.
The present government is set to amend the constitution. But it is not yet known what changes will be brought in the constitution though there are court verdicts declaring the fifth and the seventh amendments as unlawful and unconstitutional. The worrying part is that the main opposition BNP has refused to join the all-party parliamentary committee to review the constitution. Thus, it has become doubtful whether the possible amendments to the constitution would pass the criterion of consensus and broad-based national acceptance.