Ruling party-opposition relations are key to institutionalising democracy

The result of the election held in February 1991 surprised both BNP—for winning—and Awami League—for losing—because the latter thought they were all set to come to power. The joke was that AL leaders were ironing their clothes for the oath-taking ceremony.

Bangladesh started with the parliamentary system in 1972, which was changed to a presidential one as part of the BAKSAL model in 1975, and reverted to the former in September 1991, thanks to Khaleda Zia, the first prime minister in the post-autocracy period. She accepted what was the demand of AL and other opposition parties, even though BNP’s party manifesto still adhered to the presidential system.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

This, in my view, was a singular opportunity to begin a collaborative working relationship between the ruling party and the opposition. It should have come naturally because the ruling party accepted the opposition’s view and changed the form of government. Khaleda Zia, as the leader of the House, could have opted to be president following her illustrious husband—the father of the current prime minister—but chose a new direction. This should have set us on a constructive journey with collaboration between the ruling party and the opposition at its heart.

Unfortunately, it did not. Like in some other South Asian countries, the opposition here has never received its due recognition, space and rights. We never tried to understand why the opposition is called “the government in waiting” or expected to form what is called a “shadow cabinet” in the Westminster system. All this means that in the parliamentary system, the ruling party and the opposition together form the overall governance process, in which the opposition plays a crucial part through a structured, principled and accountable functioning of parliament.

In 1991, we got off to a wrong (better still, opposite) start as Sheikh Hasina called the election an instance of “shukkho karchupi” (subtle rigging). Since the election was not seen as a “people’s verdict”, the opposition’s moral obligation to accept it was ignored. AL as the opposition did not see BNP’s acceptance of the parliamentary system as a “compromise” or “a gesture of cooperation” but as a defeat. Thus, instead of a constructive attitude from the opposition, we saw a far more aggressive and obstructionist attitude, leading to an approach of “disabling the government” and making it look not only unsuccessful but also incompetent and undeserving to rule, thus implying that forcing it to relinquish power was justified.

In those early days of The Daily Star, I used to literally go everywhere—press conferences, seminars, discussions and parliamentary sessions (for my column “From the Gallery”). On one such occasion, probably in ’92 or ’93, I ventured into the room of the leader of the opposition, Sheikh Hasina, during a recess. As we talked about the issues at hand, the bell rang, signalling the resumption of the session. Suddenly, she shouted, “Walk out, walk out,” asking some in the room to tell the others. A little later, two MPs, Matia Chowdhury and Tofail Ahmed, walked in and asked why, since nothing had happened to justify such an action. After a little while, she retorted, “Ja khushi koren” (“Do as you feel”), clearly indicating that she was not happy.

This was my first direct exposure to how trivial the opposition leader’s attitude was towards the functioning of the “people’s house”. Later, we saw the start of the demand for a caretaker government to conduct the next election due in 1996, which was years away. This demand led to frequent walkouts, later to boycotts, and finally to resignations, totally making parliament one-sided and, as such, dysfunctional. While this was the scene within, outside the House there were street violence, relentless clashes with police, and chaos on the roads. There were frequent calls for hartals that started with one, two or three days and then went so far as the whole week. To ordinary citizens, this brought in an attitude of disrespect for parliament. Because of such long breaks, we unknowingly became casual about tasks at hand, work schedules and timelines—all of which had an impact on our work ethic, something from which we have yet to recover.

Ironically, however destructive the opposition’s practices were, they won the subsequent elections—AL in 1996, BNP in 2001, and AL again in 2008. Under the caretaker government system, the pattern appeared to be that the ruling party always loses. Thus, a negative message became entrenched in the opposition’s mind that regardless of how destructive their politics was, it worked to dislodge the sitting government. The opposition had no responsibility to work for stability and societal peace.

AL predicted that, if that pattern continued, it would lose the next election, so after assuming power in 2009, it abolished the caretaker government system in 2011. It legalised elections under the ruling party, which led to what we saw in 2014, 2018 and 2024—all totally manipulated elections.

The process of election manipulation triggered the politicisation of almost all our institutions—the police, bureaucracy, intelligence agencies, lower judiciary, public universities, etc. There was also tremendous pressure on the private sector to fall in line.

Coming to the present, for any success in strengthening our democratic institution-building, we have to learn from our past failures and start with making parliament truly functional. The July uprising has given us a clean slate; we have to make the most of this opportunity to restart our democratic journey.

However, our start in the new parliament has not been the best, to put it mildly. The divide between BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami has begun with the former’s refusal to take a separate oath to form a constitutional reform council as stipulated by the referendum held on February 12. The order by the interim government envisaged lawmakers serving simultaneously as MPs and members of the reform council.

The second issue was when BNP allowed 16 important ordinances out of 133 to lapse without taking the opposition’s views into consideration, especially when these ordinances dealt with crucial issues like the independence of judiciary, enforced disappearances, strengthening the Anti-Corruption Commission and National Human Rights Commission, etc.

The gap between the ruling party and the opposition further widened during the third parliamentary session, which passed six bills that the opposition party objected to, especially criticising those dealing with the very issues covered by the ordinances allowed to lapse: enforced disappearances, the NHRC, etc.

Then came the shocker: out of the chairmanships of 50 parliamentary standing committees, only one was given to the opposition—the Public Accounts Committee—whereas the demand was for 26 percent of the posts.

BNP’s initiative to form a 17-member parliamentary committee on constitutional amendments, proposing five seats for the opposition, was not accepted by the latter, as it claimed that this was a deviation from the July charter. So far, the committee has invited all parties that signed the July charter to present their views, but the opposition-led alliance has abstained.

It is clear that the ruling BNP could have been more circumspect in handling some of the issues raised by the opposition. I think there are reasonable grounds to see the opposition’s logic, and some of the early signs have been concerning. It is also natural that differences will exist between the two sides. It is also entirely justified that critical anti-government views will be expressed by the opposition.

But, as we said before, the opposition’s threats to take to the streets are highly premature. The government’s inadequacies should be pointed out, its partisan appointments revealed, and any instance of corruption exposed. But any threats to destabilise the government or create an atmosphere of uncertainty—and any fear in the public mind that we are going to face political uncertainty even after a globally accepted election—is neither justified nor acceptable.

We request the ruling party to be more receptive to the opposition’s demands, and the opposition to be more restrained and mature in its actions and declarations, if we really want Bangladesh to move forward. This is also essential for our parliamentary democracy to serve its intended purpose.

Mahfuz Anam is the editor and publisher of The Daily Star.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own. 

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.