"Politics is too serious a matter to be left to the politicians"—Charles de Gaulle, a French military officer-turned-statesman who led the resistance against the Nazis during World War II, famously said what has now become a truism. Earlier, another Frenchman, a physician-turned-journalist-turned politician named Georges Clemenceau, quipped, "War is too important to be left to the generals." Clemenceau, who later became the prime minister of France, was referring to the successive defeats of the military during World War I and asserted the influence of the national assembly for the eventual formation of the Third Republic. The French connection between the two statesmen implies a rejection of the professionals or experts dedicated in the field. Instead of assigning the tasks of war and politics, two important facets of national life, to the so-called experts, both Clemenceau and de Gaulle wanted various stakeholders in formulating strategies for national life.

Read more

Why constitutional reform is essential

The nine-member Constitutional Reform Commission, headed by Prof Ali Riaz, has recommended significant changes to our current constitution. There are academics, activists, lawyers, and writers in the team. Notable exclusions are the politicians who birthed the constitution and brought 17 different changes over the last five decades. The interim government formed the commission to reflect the wind of change through which the former government was ousted. It felt that the different provisions within the constitution compromised its democratic spirit and allowed the premier to turn into an autocrat. Whether the recommended changes can be implemented by the incumbent administration before the parliamentary election or by the incoming government after the election is a legal debate that needs to be sorted. But more importantly, the commission's report has brought many of the inherent contradictions and inconsistencies within the constitution to the surface. Some of them were due to the Cold War realpolitik that conditioned our independence; socialism is a case in point. Many others were due to the self-serving interests and agendas of various governments.

The country's four guiding principles for state governance—nationalism, socialism, democracy, and secularism—have been replaced by democracy, equality, human dignity, social justice, and pluralism. The essence of socialism can easily be subsumed under equality and social justice. The omission is thereby understandable. The contention lies in the removal of two categories: nationalism and secularism. The commission evidently tried to include them in their broad categorisation of citizenship and pluralism.

They redefined the term citizenship, replacing the existing Article 6 (2), "The people of Bangladesh are a nation of Bengalis," with "The citizens of Bangladesh will be known as 'Bangladeshis.'" This allows the commission to avoid Bangalee nationalism that worked as a mantra during our Liberation War. The proposed category of citizenship does not necessitate distinguishing citizens in terms of their ethnic groups. But the brute force with which some citizens from the hill tracts were beaten up for demanding their "Indigenous" status just recently shows that equality is a far cry if we don't truly practise pluralism.

Yet, countries from where the bicameral parliamentary model has been suggested recognise their Indigenous population as "First Nations." The special status is a way to integrate the marginal groups into the mainstream. Even from a geostrategic perspective, it is important for us to restore calm and peace in our hinterland that has been targeted by major stakeholders and neighbours with separatist agendas. 

The committee head mentioned that they worked day and night for months under the image of Abu Sayeed and remained mindful of the sacrifices made by the students and members of the general public during the July uprising. The Proclamation of Independence on April 10, 1971 embodied their guiding spirit of anti-discrimination. I think the committee cherry-picked the three terms—equality, human dignity, and social justice—to create a counternarrative that cursorily mentions the Liberation War and equates it with the July uprising. 

It concluded by observing, "We, the people of Bangladesh, who, in the continuity of the historical struggle for the liberation of this land, achieved independence through people's war and united against autocratic and fascist rule for the establishment of democracy, solemnly pledge, in utmost respect for the martyrs who sacrificed their lives, that the ideals of equality, human dignity, and social justice that inspired the people of Bangladesh in the Liberation War of 1971, and the ideals of democracy and anti-discrimination that united us against fascist rule in 2024, will be established in the state and society." 

The whimsical interpretation of the term "projatontro" echoes the sweeping statement. The commission head has mentioned his reservation against the Bangla term for "Republic" in various forums. He did not pay heed to many observers who reminded that there was nothing wrong with the term, despite its shadowy connotation of being subject to a sovereign monarch. The commission head uses a royal "we" to say that they would like to see "Republic" and "People's Republic of Bangladesh" replaced with "Citizenship" and "People's Democratic Bangladesh" in all relevant sections of the constitution. In Bangla, they used the coinage "jono-gono nagoriktontro." 

I don't see any reason as to why "projatontro," a widely understood term that conveys the idea of people's rule or governance by the people, needs to be changed. The Latin root of the word implies "public affairs," and in Chinese it means "shared harmony." The commission has unnecessarily rooted itself in semantics. May I also remind the commission of the financial, administrative, and logistical costs involved in changing the name of the country? Delivering democratic governance and reforms that benefit the people should be the priority at this point in time. The symbolic or semantic debates will hardly do us any good. 

The seven key proposals made by the commission include: adoption of the new guiding principles for the constitution and the state; establishment of institutional balance of power; reduction of the absolute power of the office of the prime minister; clear proposals for the structure of the interim government; decentralisation of the judiciary; ensuring a robust local government system; and expansion of fundamental rights, with constitutional protection and enforceability. They all deserve serious attention.

Read more

Five reform proposals to ensure a more democratic constitution

Then again, we have hit the walls of legitimacy as we have yet to determine whether it is within the mandate of the interim government to bring such changes. A referendum is required before the foundational terms of the state or the structure of governance are altered. This could lead to legal challenges, public discontent, and long-term instability. Indeed, the commission might believe that drastic changes are too crucial to leave to the politicians. Then another republic may soon arise with an alternative dictum to dismiss the one that has been proposed. Such knowledge is too dangerous to be left with the academics.

Dr Shamsad Mortuza is professor of English at Dhaka University.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.