On January 15, the Constitutional Reform Commission (CRC) — one of the six reform commissions set up by Bangladesh’s interim government following the ouster of the autocratic Sheikh Hasina regime — submitted its report to the Mohammad Yunus-led government. The CRC has made recommendations to prevent the concentration of powers in the hands of the prime minister, as happened under Hasina’s rule, and to ensure that autocratic rule does not return to Bangladesh. While retaining democracy as a fundamental principle in the Preamble of the Constitution, it calls for the inclusion of the principles of equality, human dignity, social justice, and pluralism, even as it recommends dropping three other principles. The CRC’s recommendation that “secularism” be dropped as a fundamental principle has evoked concern in some quarters.
In an interview with The Diplomat’s South Asia editor Sudha Ramachandran, Ali Riaz, who heads the Constitution Reform Commission, argued that secularism as professed and practiced by the Hasina regime was “limited to toleration of religious diversity.” According to Riaz, the CRC recommended pluralism is wider in scope and “more encompassing.”
The Constitutional Reform Commission recommends retaining just one principle (democracy) of the four guiding principles of the current Constitution: socialism, secularism, nationalism, and democracy. What is the rationale behind this?
The Commission has recommended that the constitution incorporates the founding principles of the country articulated in the Proclamation of Independence on April 10, 1971. The Proclamation laid out three principles: equality, human dignity, and social justice. All of these were disregarded by the framers of the 1972 Constitution within months of the War of Independence. It was surprising that these founding principles were pushed to oblivion in favor of four principles that were laid out by the Awami League in February 1972 even before the constitution-making process began. The Commission and many stakeholders recommended that the country return to its founding principles, befitting to pay homage to the millions who laid down their lives.
Democracy has been included, not because it was there before, but to reflect the aspiration of the long-standing struggle of the people of Bangladesh, particularly the 2024 July uprising against the personalistic autocracy of Sheikh Hasina. It is the democratic aspiration of the people of Bangladesh that was trampled by Sheikh Hasina after she came to power in 2009.
The fifth principle was added to reflect the diversity of the country. Bangladesh’s long tradition of pluralism – cultural, linguistic, religious, ethnic – needed to be underscored and should be included as a state principle.
The autocratic rule of Hasina, like her father Mujib, was legitimized under the guise of the four state principles. The popular uprising has rejected the ideology; our recommendation only reflected popular aspirations.
Why has “secularism” been dropped from the Preamble?
Secularism has been dropped in our recommendation in favor of the broader principle of pluralism. In recent decades, the concept of secularism has been either revised or rejected. Secularization theory, and its variations, are being challenged on several grounds, including its effectiveness in addressing the diversity of non-Western societies. Works of a range of social scientists, such as Talal Asad, Saba Mahmood, Charles Taylor, and Ashish Nandy have aptly demonstrated that the concept of secularism is problematic.
Let us not forget the lineage of the term. Secularism as a state principle emerged after the European Wars of Religion when religion and society progressively accepted the differentiation. As such, secularization of the “sacred,” that is Christianity, led to the emergence of secularism as a political ideology.
However, these debates notwithstanding, in Bangladesh, secularism has been used as an instrument to divide the nation and as a weapon in the past decade by the autocratic regime. Secularism as it has been professed in Bangladesh by the previous regime and its apologists has been limited to toleration of religious diversity, whereas the commission recommended pluralism, which will allow the country to be more encompassing. Pluralism, by definition, professes the coexistence of people of various backgrounds and ensures equal participation in social and political lives. It will not only address religious diversity such as Hindus, Buddhists, Ahmadis and Bahais but will also be inclusive to other marginalized sections of the people, such as Dalits and people of third gender. Interestingly, despite having secularism as a state principle, minority persecution went unabetted for decades.
If you look at the history of the country’s constitution, secularism was in the constitution for only 18 and a half years out of 52 years. In the remaining 33 years, several political parties – the Jatiya Party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), and the Awami League, were in power and made no move to reinstate it until Hasina made the move in 2011 as she embarked on institutionalizing an autocratic regime. Neither did the High Court interject on this issue.
Both secularism and Islam as a state religion co-exist in the current constitution. In the CRC recommendation, secularism has been dropped and Islam is retained. What will be the state’s relationship with religion?
Islam was inserted as the state religion in 1988. Since then, the Awami League and the BNP rotated in power, yet they didn’t make any move to scrap it, although eight amendments to the constitution were made. In April 2024, the High Court in its full verdict stated that Islam as the state religion does not contradict the constitution. During our consultations with stakeholders, an overwhelming number suggested that this should stay as it is. We received more than 50,000 suggestions through our website, of which an overwhelming majority opined in favor of the retention [of Islam in the constitution].
We reviewed 121 constitutions, including that of Bangladesh, as a part of our review process and found that 19 countries have a state religion while 75 countries have reference to “faith in Almighty.” Many Western countries have a state religion or official recognition of one religion. In 2017, the Washington-based research organization Pew Research Center found that “more than 80 countries favor a specific religion, either as an official, government-endorsed religion or by affording one religion preferential treatment over other faiths.” It showed that 22 percent of the 199 states have an official religion, while 20 percent have a preferred/favored religion. As such, Bangladesh is not unique.
The relationship between the state and religion varies significantly even if they have a state-endorsed religion. Jonathon Fox, drawing on data from the Religion and State (RAS) dataset of the Bar Elan University of Israel, argued that there are dramatically different situations. He used the example of the United Kingdom and Iran; both have a state religion or official church but the role of religion in these two countries is diametrically opposite.
The Bangladeshi state’s relationship with religion under the revised constitution as recommended by the CRC would not be different from past decades. Until religion acts as the source of legal measures or challenges the politico-legal institutions, there are few reasons to be alarmed. Often state religions are more symbolic than substantive.
What safeguards have the CRC recommended to ensure that authoritarian rule doesn’t return?
We have made several recommendations to spread power through various institutions as opposed to the current mode of concentration in the hands of the prime minister. For example, we have recommended creating the National Constitutional Council (NCC), which will make recommendations for appointments in constitutional posts and the chiefs of staff of the defense forces. Currently, the power is solely in the hands of the prime minister. We have proposed to have some powers be shifted to the president. Currently, under Article 48 (3), the president is bound to consult the PM on all appointments; we recommended that it be curtailed.
Article 70, as it is in the constitution, makes the Parliament members of the ruling party subservient to the PM as they cannot vote against the party motion. This prevents any motion to remove the prime minister, even if members of the ruling party intend to change the PM. We have recommended that the PM cannot be the head of the party and the Leader of the House. We suggested a two-term limit for the PM.
We have recommended that the judiciary be made independent, and a separate secretariat under the Supreme Court be established. These suggestions are intended to create accountability, balance of power, and rule of law, thus preventing the likelihood of another autocratic rule.
To what changes do you expect opposition from the political parties?
Since the publication of the summaries of our recommendations, we have not heard any serious criticisms, let alone outright rejections from political parties. Understandably, they are waiting for the complete report. Full reports will be made public by the end of the first week of February.
Many of these proposals are from political parties. Take, for example, the recommendation for the introduction of a bicameral parliament. It has broad support from the parties and society at large. Having said that, I understand that all political parties have their own proposals and some of our recommendations may not align with theirs. There will be negotiations with the parties. I don’t think the differences are so big that some form of consensus cannot be reached.
Everyone, and I mean everyone, wants some changes. The past 16 years’ experience – of enforced disappearances, of extrajudicial killings, of stealing voting rights – has made everyone realize that changes are needed to prevent these from happening in the future. Bangladesh has witnessed an unprecedented level of violence, not only human rights violations but also crimes against humanity. The deaths of hundreds and injuries of more than 14,000 people cannot be in vain.
What is the process ahead likely to be? Will it be left to an elected government to take the process forward?
The reform commissions, six of which were appointed at the early stage of the interim government, have submitted their reports. These reports, when the full versions are published, will be scrutinized by the parties. Then the government would initiate dialogues with the political parties. Professor Muhammad Yunus has said that a Consensus Commission headed by him will be appointed soon to take forward the conversation. It is expected that a “National Charter,” identifying the reform measures that will be needed to implement a democratic rebuilding of the country, can be produced with the political parties on board. The process will start in February. A pathway for implementation will emerge out of these negotiations.