In the ongoing debate over governance in Bangladesh, political scientists often champion the merits of a parliamentary system, arguing that it offers greater representation by centering power in an elected Prime Minister.

Yet, this conventional wisdom has not held true. Over the past three decades, despite the parliamentary framework, political power has consistently remained concentrated in the hands of a single individual.

After Hussain Muhammad Ershad's resignation in the early 1990s, Bangladesh transitioned into a parliamentary democracy, but the fundamental issue of power consolidation remained unresolved.

The head of government, whether from the ruling Awami League or the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, has wielded almost unchecked authority.

Cabinet ministers and lawmakers, nominally elected to represent the people, have been reduced to mere puppets.

Their ability to challenge or even express independent views has been severely curtailed. Deviating from party lines could cost an MP their seat, thus silencing dissent and stifling the possibility of genuine debate.

The problem, therefore, is not the structure of the parliamentary system itself but the way it has been manipulated.

Whether it is a presidential or parliamentary system, when power is concentrated in a single individual or office, true democratic representation is undermined.

Contrast this with the United States, where the presidential system has allowed for a balance of power between the executive and the legislature.

The U.S. Congress, although often seen as highly partisan, retains the power to check the president's decisions. American legislators are empowered to vote according to their conscience, not merely follow party lines or political expediency.

They engage in the lawmaking process, scrutinize policies, and speak freely without fear of retribution.

While the system is not without its flaws, it exemplifies a level of democratic autonomy that Bangladesh has yet to achieve.

Bangladesh’s need for reform is clear. It is time to move away from a political system that allows one person to hold disproportionate influence, whether in a presidential or parliamentary framework.

A shift to a presidential system, where power is clearly delineated and accountability is more direct, could provide the needed checks on executive authority and prevent the dangerous concentration of power that has plagued the country for decades.

Only then can we hope to create a true democracy, one where power is shared and the voice of the people is heard.

A path to stability and accountability

Let me elaborate on my point  why Bangladesh urgently needs to transition to a presidential system of government.

The president should be directly elected by the people, ensuring accountability to the public. Like in the United States, the president’s term should be limited to four years.

A shorter term is necessary because Bangladeshis tend to grow impatient with long political cycles. A five-year term, as seen in the current system, often feels like too much to endure, leading to frustration and movements to overthrow the government before it has even completed its term.

This cycle of unrest only breeds chaos and instability.

The roots of this issue can be traced back to the early 1990s, when, following the fall of Ershad, a rare moment of unity between Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia led to the shift from a presidential to a parliamentary system.

However, both parties, wary of direct confrontation, avoided putting forward their own candidates for the presidency.

Instead, the two major parties reduced the presidency to a symbolic position, appointing ineffective, expired figures to occupy the post while wielding actual power behind the scenes.

These puppets were often used to carry out the parties' agendas, such as granting pardons to convicted murderers on death row.

The president would issue the pardon, while the Prime Minister would claim, "The President has pardoned them." The president, in turn, would argue that all decisions were made under the Prime Minister's direction.

This blame-shifting practice left the public with no clear accountability.

This hypocrisy has gone on long enough. The solution is a full shift to a presidential system, where the president holds real power and is directly accountable to the people.

Abolishing the office of the Prime Minister would not only streamline governance but would also reduce state expenditures, ease congestion in the capital, and improve efficiency in administration.

The United States, without a Prime Minister, demonstrates that such a system can work well. Its governance functions with much greater stability than Bangladesh's, proving that a presidential system can be both effective and efficient.

It’s time Bangladesh took that step toward a more accountable and stable political future.

The case against a bicameral parliament in Bangladesh

Bangladesh does not need a bicameral parliament. Introducing a second chamber would not strengthen democracy, but instead, it would dilute the voice of civil society.

Currently, civil society holds some sway, but a bicameral system would likely transform the upper house into a platform for political flattery, where politicians compete to appease the government.

This would result in the unconditional support of government actions—regardless of their merit—and further entrench the political status quo.

More Members of Parliament (MPs) would only lead to more waste: more VIP privileges, more tax-free cars, more flats and plots, and even greater squandering of public resources.

Worse, a bloated legislature would foster a culture of authoritarianism, as MPs, unwilling to oppose the ruling party, would only serve to rubber-stamp government policies.

Additionally, the system of unelected members, especially reserved seats for women, is outdated. After 30 years of women holding positions in government, if we still need reserved seats for women, it implies a failure to develop a truly meritocratic system.

Instead of tokenism, we should prioritize competence and qualification, not just representation by quotas. Parliament should not be a place for idle chatter or political maneuvering; it should be a space for real debate and decision-making.

With the massive costs associated with maintaining the parliament building, the public’s tax money and remittances from expatriates should not go toward luxury for political elites.

The influence of MPs in both society and administration also needs to be curbed. Lawmakers should focus on their primary role: making laws.

They should not be using their influence to interfere with the police or government agencies. For instance, why should an MP be calling the police chief to intervene in a criminal case or meddling with jobs and tenders in the secretariat?

MPs should not have special privileges, like guarantees for government transfers or promotions, which only reinforce the politics of patronage.

If Bangladesh is serious about adopting a people-centric constitution, it must move beyond traditional reforms and pursue revolutionary changes.

The interim government, under the leadership of figures like Muhammad Yunus, should embrace the wisdom of truly transformative constitutional reform.

This is not the time for superficial changes or fashionable reforms; Bangladesh needs logical, substantive alterations that will modernize governance and reduce political waste.

—-

CM Kajwal is a U.S based Bangladeshi journalist and commentator