The election reform committee has certainly taken into account the essence of the proverb “Quinine will cure fever, but who will cure quinine?” Why is it necessary to remember the metaphor ‘quinine’?
The experts in the interim government’s election reform committee have demonstrated commendable skill in identifying the root cause of the problem. The root cause is the recurring return of authoritarianism. Just as cholera or tuberculosis used to return repeatedly five or six decades ago. The main objective, therefore, is to eliminate the disease at its root. To free the nation from this ailment, quinine is essential – and this quinine is ‘election reform’.
Although the specific methods and processes for election reform have not yet been fully presented, the purpose is clear: to ensure that authoritarianism never becomes an epidemic in Bangladesh again. The experts behind the reform proposals are undoubtedly knowledgeable and have certainly conducted thorough research.
We have some concerns and questions from a distance, and we seek clearer explanations. The experts involved may have already reviewed all of these, and answers might be ready. But if by any chance they haven’t been reviewed or considered carefully, it’s important to reconsider.
At first glance, it seems that no party has objections to the idea of a bicameral parliament. However, have they considered why, in the Westminster-style parliamentary democracies like Britain, opposition to a bicameral system has grown strong over the past decade? There is even a possibility that the UK will abolish its bicameral parliament in the coming years.
In Italy, the demand for the abolition of the upper house grew in the past decade, prompting the country to reform its electoral system. A referendum was held in Italy from 20–22 September 2020, to assess the public’s views. The people voted in favour of a unicameral system and also wanted to reduce the number of seats in both houses. As a result, the number of seats in the upper house was reduced from 315 to 200, and in the lower house from 630 to 400.
Bangladesh is a country prone to both natural and political disasters. Additionally, it is a poor country. When urgent decisions are needed, there is a risk that delays in the Senate could leave no way out. Does Bangladesh even have the financial capacity for a Senate? A Senate requires experienced, skilled, and capable people, but the number of such individuals in Bangladesh is very small. If a truly effective Senate is not created, the quinine will only be used to cure the fever, but it will be difficult to cure quinine.
In practical terms, Italy’s parliament is now essentially unicameral, although it is still strategically bicameral. The Senate remains, but 90 per cent of its powers and responsibilities have been cut. The Senate now only reviews and gives opinions on newly passed laws. It’s not easy to suddenly abolish an established system, so Italy has kept the Senate in a largely symbolic role, and political scientists expect that it will eventually become ineffective, and the country will fully adopt a unicameral system in due course.
Why is a bicameral parliament being seen as quinine for Bangladesh? It’s because of the recurring dominance of autocrats and despots over the past 53 years. The people of Bangladesh have witnessed authoritarian rule both under the presidential and parliamentary systems between 1971–1975, 1982–1990, and 2009–2024. During Sheikh Hasina’s rule, the parliament has seen endless praise and flattery directed at the prime minister, with hours spent on sycophantic speeches and the shameless adulation of her loyalists.
Had there been an upper house in parliament, members could have curbed many abuses and malpractices. They could have said that parliament is not a place for singing songs of praise. They could have blocked the formation of security forces or special laws like the Special Powers Act, Section 54, the ICT Act, and others. While they may not have been able to directly intervene in every decision made in the lower house, they could have kept it under constant pressure, at least ensuring that any anti-people law would have to undergo review and revision, making it more people-friendly or less authoritarian.
Without an upper house, party MPs blindly approve any proposal. During Sheikh Hasina’s government, the number of secret agreements with India reached an uncountable level. Has any party member ever had the courage to ask, “Honorable Prime Minister, can we know in detail what agreements have been made and what benefits we will gain?”
With a Senate in place, even ruling party MPs would have the strength and courage to raise issues about the government’s mistakes. If they stayed silent, the Senate members would not remain quiet. If the Senate had decided, “No, this is against the national interest, it cannot be done,” or if an agreement could not be reached with the lower house, the government would not have been able to act unilaterally.
Countries like the United States, India, the UK, Australia, Canada, Switzerland, and Spain all have bicameral parliaments, and their upper houses play an important role in maintaining stable democracy. However, as the saying goes, “Not all that glitters is gold.”
Having an upper house is expensive, and in many cases, decisions that need to be made urgently can be delayed due to lengthy Senate reviews. The conflicts over power usage between the two chambers also create more complications. Even in Canada, the US, the UK, and Australia, regular calculations are made on the number of Liberals and Conservatives in the Senate. MPs in the lower house draft proposals with numbers in mind to avoid obstacles.
A more important consideration is that countries like the US, Canada, India, and Australia are vast. Their states or provinces are numerous, and their linguistic and cultural diversity is so great that effective decision-making requires proper representation of these provinces in the upper house. Without such a system, managing the complexities of these vast countries would be difficult.
The purpose of the upper house in these countries is not to prevent authoritarianism. The main difference between these countries and Bangladesh is that Bangladesh is a small country without provinces, with minimal diversity, and where everyone knows everyone. The family and group-based connections are so intertwined that it would not take long for the relationship between the upper and lower houses to become problematic.
Bangladesh is a country prone to both natural and political disasters. Additionally, it is a poor country. When urgent decisions are needed, there is a risk that delays in the Senate could leave no way out. Does Bangladesh even have the financial capacity for a Senate? A Senate requires experienced, skilled, and capable people, but the number of such individuals in Bangladesh is very small. If a truly effective Senate is not created, the quinine will only be used to cure the fever, but it will be difficult to cure quinine.
Personally, I am not opposed to the idea of a Senate in Bangladesh, but I strongly advocate for caution and thorough examination. The issue of why there are 100 reserved seats for women, and why women cannot be directly elected, remains unclear. The term “reserved” and its underlying implication are disrespectful to women. Political parties should nominate one female candidate for each of their three reserved seats. If there are any thoughts or considerations regarding the role of the ‘ombudsman,’ the public should be informed.
*Helal Mohiuddin, Professor at North South University, currently a Visiting Professor at Montclair State University, New Jersey, USA.
prothom alo
