Does our constitution need reform?

The Concerned Citizen's Group, in the view of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, has invited another attack on democracy by calling for forming a Constitution Reform Commission to bring necessary changes to the charter for an effective democratic system.

The accusation she made on Wednesday is serious in nature. To conclude whether the civil society's recommendation or the PM's accusation is justified, we need to look at the necessities and the nature of the previous amendments to the constitution. 

A total of 16 amendments have been brought to our constitution over the past four decades. But it is difficult to find any amendment which was actually aimed at improving the constitution's quality, enhancing people's rights and paving the way for flourishing democracy. 

Rather, a close look will tell us how the successive governments have brought the changes in the constitution only for their partisan purposes and even by abusing the parliament's jurisdiction in some cases. 

Due to the abuse of parliament's authority, the Supreme Court has scrapped the 5th, 7th and 13th amendments fully and the 8th amendment partially. In views of the apex court those amendments were illegal and void as they either destroyed or were against the basic structure of the constitution.

The 5th and 7th amendments passed in 1979 and 1986 respectively had ratified all orders and actions of the first and second martial law regimes. 

The 13th amendment passed in 1996 introduced the election-time caretaker government system amid growing distrust and confrontational culture of politics over the polls.

The apex court declared the 8th amendment partly illegal and void as it destroyed one of the basic structures of the constitution by introducing a provision for setting up permanent benches of the High Court in six other places outside the capital.

There are some other significant amendments that did not fortify the constitution, rather contributed much to subvert it.

Soon after the constitution became effective in December 1972, the second amendment was brought in 1973, introducing a provision for declaring a state of emergency by the president, which was not included in the original constitution. The amendment also empowered the president to suspend people's fundamental rights during emergencies.

Passage of the 4th amendment in 1975 was an attack on the constitution through which one-party rule was introduced burying multi-party democracy. A presidential form of government was introduced discarding the parliamentary form.

Interestingly, the 6th amendment was brought to the constitution in 1981, allowing the then vice-present Justice Abdus Sattar to contest the presidential election without resigning from the post of vice-president.

In 1991, the 11th amendment was brought to ratify Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed's extra-constitutional appointment as the vice-president, and the powers exercised and laws and ordinances made during the tenure that began after the fall of Ershad's regime in 1990. The 11th amendment made in 1991 wrongly ratified Justice Shahabuddin's regime. Therefore, the 15th amendment in 2011 deleted the 11th amendment completely. 

Only the 12th amendment made in 1991 brought some positive changes by restoring the parliamentary form of government, which had been transformed into the presidential form by the 4th amendment. But it has made the prime minister all-powerful. 

The 14th amendment was made in 2004. It generated a huge controversy as it increased the service age of Supreme Court judges by two years. The consequence was a political turmoil by the end of 2006 and a state of emergency in January 2007. 

The 15th amendment brought in 2011 is not free from the long legacy of making the constitution subject to the whimsical will of those in power. This amendment inserted an absurd provision by imposing a ban on amending the constitution's preamble, including unspecified basic structure and a large number of specific provisions. 

Introduction of the 15th amendment is being blamed for blocking the future parliament's authority to bring amendments to those specified provisions. This means even if a future parliament wants to fortify the constitution and strengthen people's fundamental rights, it cannot do so as the 15th amendment made unamendable all the provisions stated in the fundamental rights and fundamental state principles.

And the last 16th amendment empowered the parliament to impeach a Supreme Court judge on the grounds of misconduct or incapacity for discharging duties. This amendment was brought amid a huge controversy in 2014.  

Under such a state of constitution, is the PM's accusation or the call for forming a constitutional commission justified?    

On Wednesday, Sheikh Hasina slammed the civil society personalities who are seeking fresh constitutional changes saying "they were either advisers to military dictators or worked under dictators in various capacities."

The way premier has reacted to the call made by the Concerned Citizen's Group, a platform of distinguished personalities, has made it clear that her government will never support the idea for setting up a constitutional commission. 

But the way she blasted the civil society personalities gave an impression as if they brought bad news for her government. So the only way is: shoot the messengers. 

But will only shooting the messengers change the reality? 

Moreover, her critics may find her stance against military dictators contradictory because of the present status of Gen Ershad, one of the two military rulers, and his Jatiya Party. Hasina has made Gen Ershad, who grabbed the state power in 1982 unconstitutionally and put the country under martial law, her special envoy with the status of a minister. Three of his party's MPs have been inducted into her council of ministers. Of the three, two were ministers in the cabinet of the Ershad-led government. And Jatiya Party has been made the main opposition in parliament. 

This shows the premier finds nothing wrong with keeping ties with the former military dictator Ershad and his party as they are with her government. 

The other former military dictator Gen Ziaur Rahman was brutally murdered in 1981. But the party he founded has become the main opposition of the Hasina-led Awami League. 

Under such a situation, one may conclude that the premier's attacks against the military dictators are in fact targeted at Gen Zia and the BNP. 

Is this called politics? 

The writer is Senior Reporter, The Daily Star.