The BNP has made some concessions on reforms. But what about others? It doesn’t seem so. Instead, a propaganda is being spread against BNP that BNP does not want reforms. BNP agreed to give conditional exemption in the meeting of the reform consensus commission with different parties. At the end of the meeting, the BNP said it would also accept not having a prime minister for more than two terms if the proposal of the National Constitutional Council is cancelled.

BNP has agreed to 89 per cent of the reforms proposed by different commissions. The BNP has disagreed with some proposals for reforming the constitution.

 

First of all, let’s talk about the Prime Minister. BNP, through a 31-point declaration, had earlier proposed that no one can serve as prime minister for more than two consecutive terms. But the commission has said that no one can become prime minister twice or for more than 10 years. This is not the first time the commission has talked about the prime minister’s tenure. BNP had earlier put forward a proposal regarding the tenure of the prime minister.

Not only that, BNP also proposed to amend Article 70 of the Constitution. BNP had earlier planned to form an upper house. It also calls for a balance of power between the president, prime minister, cabinet, legislature, judiciary and executive. BNP has specific proposals for amending the electoral law and reforming the electoral system.

Rather, the commissions have made some proposals that have now raised questions in the public about the reform process.

 

The question is whether the government or the commission wants any reform at all or whether some of their unrealistic reform proposals are to weaken the future government. It seems that the main objective of the reform is to stop BNP as part of the plan.

Relying on BNP’s proposals, all such proposals have been made, which will be difficult for any effective political parties to accept BNP. Such a plan can be added to the reform proposal to share the power of those who do not have enough public support or organisational structure.

 

BNP is the largest and most influential political party in the country. They will come to power after the elections. And it’s not just this election. The BJP is likely to perform better in the next few elections. “There is no Awami League in the country. The party may not return to politics. The party may meet the same fate as its parent organisation, the Muslim League. It means it can disappear. It is not possible for Jamaat-e-Islami to come to the mainstream due to their anti-liberation stance in ’71. The NCP is beset with problems. They could not bring any new politics in front of the public.

If this situation does not change, it can be assumed that BNP will dominate electoral politics in the next few terms. In such a situation, BNP acting chairman Tarique Rahman can serve as the prime minister for several consecutive terms. Perhaps, the fact that Tarique Rahman has not been in office for more than two terms has come to the fore to stop him. It is being said that such a proposal has been made so that no one can become Sheikh Hasina again.

But many states do not have such a law. There is no such rule in Britain. However, this rule is not followed in many states. such as the United States and Iran. The U.S. and Iran are not examples. Although Iran has a president, the supreme religious leader wields absolute power. The President has no power. And because of such an obligation of the United States, they are now forced to vote for candidates like Joe Biden or Donald Trump.

Above all, such an obligation takes away the citizen’s freedom of choice. That being said, this method is effective for creating new leadership. But keep in mind, Donald Trump can also go this way. This rule was also applied in Turkey and Russia, but was not followed.

The reform proposal also included the formation of a council to make appointments to constitutional posts. However, the commission has now backed out of the proposal. The BJP is totally opposed to it. Many other parties are in favour of forming the council. The council will make appointments to various constitutional posts. Good proposal. But at the same time, it is a terrible suggestion that the appointment of the chief of the defence forces was said to be done through this council. The commission had proposed the appointment of important and sensitive posts like the chief of the army staff.

At no time in the world has a law prevented the rise of fascism and authoritarianism in any country. All of these are prohibited by state and federal law. And yet, dictators are on the rise. Such tendencies are curbed through people’s empowerment. But surprisingly, instead of empowering the people, efforts have been made to remove their power. 

But the army chief is not a constitutional post. And the army is headed by seniority. Political parties are violating it. However, there is a policy behind this. Now, if the ruling party does not have control over various important posts, they will face many obstacles in running the state. Experts involved in reforms do not understand the difference between democratic behaviour and tying hands and feet. Earlier, some powers were enjoyed by the Prime Minister in a way. Now it’s going to increase its share. Political tensions will increase. There won’t be anything more.

If these proposals are implemented, the public will not be empowered. There will be no devolution of power. There will be some new partners in power with the government at the centre. Even with less than 5 percent of the vote, he could enjoy the same power as the ruling party if the Constitutional Council was formed.

At no time in the world has a law prevented the rise of fascism and authoritarianism in any country. All of these are prohibited by state and federal law. And yet, dictators are on the rise. Such tendencies are curbed through people’s empowerment. But surprisingly, instead of empowering the people, efforts have been made to remove their power.

 

Local government elections will not be held directly. Council members will elect one of their own. No one other than a highly qualified person can become president. But before that, in our India, has the state been able to create an environment and assurance to ensure education for all in the country? Do the authors of this proposal know what the dropout rate is in the country? How many children are engaged in child labour? Such a proposal without ensuring education for all proves that they are not on the ground of reality. Thinking about reform from an imaginary place.

Still, BNP is thinking of giving exemption considering the larger interest of the country and the nation. This is the positive side of BJP. Since its inception, BNP has practiced the politics of tolerance and concession. BNP gave Jamaat-e-Islami, which was banned after 1971, a chance to do politics. BNP also brought back the dissolved Awami League to politics in Baksal. If these two parties were not brought back, there would be no harm to the BNP. But BNP took the decision considering the need for multi-party politics.

In 1991, BNP agreed to form a parliamentary government from the presidential system. But the presidential system was suitable for the BNP. Awami League brought BNP to the parliamentary system after many calculations. They reaped the benefits when they came to power in 1996. But if there was a presidential system, it was impossible for Sheikh Hasina to become president by defeating Khaleda Zia. Sheikh Hasina was not even close to Khaleda Zia in terms of popularity. Therefore, the Awami League and other parties started negotiating for a parliamentary system of government on the basis of the votes received in the 1991 parliamentary elections.

Now it seems that some parties including Jamaat-e-Islami, NCP have assumed the role of Awami League. It will be difficult for them to compete with BNP in the election at this moment. Therefore, various proposals are being made such as fixing the tenure of the prime minister and forming a constitutional council. These parties are talking about the distribution of seats in proportion to the votes received in the upper house. Despite getting fewer votes, they are putting forward various proposals so that they can obstruct the government in various ways.