This is more than a weird situation.
The President, as Head of State, takes precedence over all other persons in Bangladesh. He is the only person in the country who constitutionally enjoys immunity from prosecution while in office. As per Article 51 of the constitution, the President is not answerable in any court for anything done or omitted by him in the exercise or purported exercise of the functions of his office.
But in reality, the presidency has been made nothing but a “yes men” position, dating back to 1996.
Believe it or not, the Head of State does not have any freedom of speech when addressing the parliament — neither at the inaugural sitting of a new parliament formed immediately after a general election, nor at the first sitting of the new year session.
The President does not speak his own words in his address on either occasion. He speaks only what the cabinet, led by the prime minister, approves. So, neither the parliament nor the people have any scope to hear the president’s own thoughts about the country and the government of the day.
This system of curbing the president’s freedom of speech in parliament was introduced in 1996 by then Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina after amending the rules of business of the government. The amendment introduced a new provision which stated that the cabinet will approve the president’s address and message to parliament and cabinet.
She introduced the system targeting then President Abdur Rahman Biswas, who was elected by the previous parliament based on nomination by the BNP — the ruling party at the time. Hasina did not particularly care about the presidency; her target was the person in office.
That was the beginning of a vicious cycle of politics to make the presidency subservient to the prime minister. Biswas was compelled to read out the speech approved by the Hasina cabinet. He said what the AL government wanted him to say in his address in the inaugural session of the seventh parliament in 1996.
But initially, parliamentary democracy was off to a great start.
The President was free to speak his own words in his address to the parliament in the first five years since the system’s introduction in 1991 following the ouster of the Ershad regime.
Hasina’s policy, however, backfired after her party’s humiliating electoral defeat in the October 2001 election.
Her government had made former chief justice Shahabuddin Ahmed president after the expiry of Abdur Rahman Biswas’ term. Her pick for the presidency was widely lauded, triggering hope for the rise of the presidency as an institution.
Shahabuddin was widely respected for his role as the head of the interim government formed after the uprising in December 1990, which then facilitated a smooth political transition through holding a free and fair parliamentary election in February 1991.
A man of integrity, Shahabuddin was outspoken. On several occasions, he spoke against the culture of default loans and urged political parties to reach a consensus to disqualify loan defaulters from contesting parliamentary elections.
Violent activities on campuses by student organisations prompted him to raise his voice against the practice and urge political parties to sever ties with the student bodies.
Because of his acceptability to all political parties, the chief of BNP, then main opposition in parliament, Khaleda Zia went to the Bangabhaban several times to discuss their issues and demands with the President.
He did not say “yes” to everything done by the Hasina government.
But Shahabuddin’s nonpartisan role during the 2001 election made him the target of verbal abuse and criticism from AL, which escalated after the party’s election debacle.
During the election-time caretaker government led by Justice Latifur Rahman, many top secretaries and field-level police officials were transferred to ensure a free and fair election, an act strongly opposed by the AL. After the election, the party rejected the election result, claiming that the polls had been rigged and that the president had aided the rigging.
Justice Shahabuddin’s address at the inaugural session of the eighth parliament formed in the 2001 election drew wrath from the AL as the president’s written speech was bitterly critical of the party’s rule between 1996-2001. In fact, it was not the outgoing president Shahabuddin’s own speech. Rather it was drafted and approved by the then newly formed cabinet led by Khaleda Zia.
But there was a wind of change when Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed assumed the office of the President in 1996. His five-year term marked a significant change in the presidency, garnering people’s support and respect.
His immediate successor, Prof AQM Badruddoza Chowdhury, tried to maintain the image of the presidency developed by Justice Shahabuddin. But his tenure was cut short; he was ousted by the BNP in June 2002 from Bangabhaban within seven months into the office.
After Prof Chowdhury, who was secretary general of BNP when it was founded by Ziaur Rahman in 1979, Professor Iajuddin Ahmed, a retired teacher of Dhaka University, was picked for Bangabhaban, who would bring down the presidency to a further low and emerge later as “Yesuddin.”
His successors Zillur Rahman and Abdul Hamid, who were elected by the Awami League, could not repair the damage already done to the office of the president. Both were nothing but “yes men”.
The election of Hamid’s successor Mohammad Shahabuddin was a surprise sprung by Hasina. In less than one year of his assuming the office, the Hasina government staged a one-sided parliamentary election in January 2024 and seemingly consolidated her power until she was forced to resign and flee.
President Shahabuddin had to go through a turbulent period during the Muhmmad Yunus-led interim government. According to his latest interview with Bangla daily Kaler Kantho, the armed forces and the BNP stood by him to survive the storm brewed to oust him from Bangabhaban.
Shahabuddin entered the presidency in April 2023 for a five-year term. Amid growing speculation whether he would resign after the election, he made it clear that if the ruling party wants him to stay, he will stay the rest of his term.
It depends on the policymakers of the government and the ruling BNP whether they will say goodbye to President Shahabuddin. His early departure will give a signal that not the institution, the presidency, or the individual still matter.
It was the politics pursued by the Yunus government. It championed empowering the presidency to bring balance of powers. On the other hand, it allegedly undermined the presidency in every possible way. The president now alleges there was a conspiracy during the Yunus era to remove him. Even a mob mobilised in front of Bangabhaban in October 2024 to oust him.
Regardless of his staying or leaving Bangabhaban, it is certain that President Shahabuddin will address the new parliament when it goes into session on 12 March.
Whatever the president will say in his address, the new parliament, like the previous ones, will hold a marathon discussion on a proposed thanksgiving motion. Parliament will decide whether it will pass the resolution or not.
There is another paradox: MPs who will join the discussion on thanksgiving motion will face no dearth of freedom of speech. Like many other democracies, they enjoy constitutional immunity for freedom of speech, commonly known as parliamentary privilege or non-liability. None of them can be prosecuted in courts for whatever they say while joining the parliamentary proceedings.
This ensures a free environment so that they can function effectively without fear of legal retaliation from the executive branch or private parties. This immunity, enshrined in constitutions like Article 105 in India or the Bill of Rights 1689 in the UK, allows MPs to speak truthfully and boldly, which is considered essential for a robust democracy.
But the president does not have his own voice. It is because of the 1996 amendment enacted by Hasina.
Over the years, the president’s speeches have been little more than a routine parliamentary ritual, carrying little significance in the public mind, as the head of state’s addresses are largely repetitions of the government of the day’s development rhetoric and verbal attacks on opposition.
Now, the ball is in Prime Minister Tarique Rahman’s court as to whether his government will carry the legacy of his predecessor who in 1996 denied the president freedom of speech in parliament or return to the practice of the first Khaleda Zia government by removing the gag on the President’s voice.
Source: https://www.tbsnews.net/features/panorama/presidents-missing-voice-parliament-1370481
