¶¶Òõ¾«Æ·

THE call for constitutional change in Bangladesh has intensified, not merely for refinement but as a profound demand for democratic renewal. Reforming the 1972 constitution within its current framework overlooks a critical reality: the document is itself embedded with principles that have enabled authoritarianism rather than safeguarded against it, which contradicts the spirit of Bangladesh’s 1971 liberation war. The question now is whether a complete rewrite is necessary to eliminate entrenched authoritarian elements to create a future rooted in the values of equality, human dignity and social justice that inspired the nation’s fight for independence.

This debate on reforming versus rewriting goes beyond semantics; it signifies fundamentally different intentions that shape the extent of change. Reform implies a focused attempt to improve specific areas within an existing framework, with the assumption that the foundation is sound but needs updates to address new or evolving needs. In contrast, rewriting signifies a complete rethinking of the entire structure, often suggesting that the current framework is fundamentally flawed, misaligned or outdated.

The choice to rewrite raises questions of intent and often sparks resistance, as it implies inherent flaws in the original document. Supporters of rewriting Bangladesh’s 1972 constitution argue that certain provisions promote authoritarianism, a drift so deeply embedded that only a full overhaul can eliminate this risk. This stance, while contentious, argues that the current constitution is incompatible with modern democratic ideals and requires a new foundation rather than incremental updates.

In contrast, reformation aims to refine or strengthen the existing framework without replacing it entirely. Proponents of constitutional reformation in Bangladesh argue that careful adjustments to select provisions can mitigate authoritarian risks while preserving the essence of the 1972 Constitution. By respecting the original intentions of its framers, reformation offers continuity and proposes a constructive way forward without discarding the document’s core values.

The debate around the constitution also touches a deeper historical chord. The central question surrounding the 1972 constitution is whether it genuinely embodied the high ideals of equality, human dignity, and social justice set forth in paragraph 12 of the 1971 Proclamation of Bangladesh Independence, issued on April 10, 1971, by the provisional government of Bangladesh in Mujibnagar. Although these values appear in the constitution’s preamble, they were not codified as core state principles. Instead, the constitution adopted four guiding pillars — nationalism, socialism, democracy and secularism — that were not part of the original Proclamation. This substitution, ostensibly to uphold the Liberation War’s spirit, may have instead distorted it. For a document foundational to national identity, it is crucial to question why these ideals were replaced and who stood to benefit from this shift.

The long-term consequences of these decisions have grown clearer over time. By embedding the four pillars as the constitution’s core, the framers arguably created a framework that allowed for authoritarian practices in Bangladesh’s politics over the past 50 years. The extended rule of the Awami League from 2009 to 2024 illustrates how these principles have facilitated power consolidation and created a system that prioritises specific political interests over true democratic representation.

A constitution that repeatedly enables authoritarianism likely has inherent issues. The constitution’s foundational pillars have justified selective policies that favour certain interests, compromise freedom of expression, and restrict economic opportunity. Nationalism, for example, has been invoked to justify policies that limit dissent, while secularism, though intended for harmony, has restricted political expression. Similarly, socialism, meant to promote equality, has sometimes justified restrictive economic policies. These foundational principles have promoted an environment where authoritarianism can take root and thrive.

When the foundational principles themselves allow authoritarian drift, reform alone is unlikely to deliver the transformative change that Bangladesh needs. Isolated amendments might temporarily curb authoritarian tendencies but cannot reshape a framework that ultimately prioritises certain interests over democratic will. Even an extensively revised 1972 constitution would still carry the weight of principles misaligned with democratic ideals. Under these circumstances, reform risks becoming a superficial fix when a fundamental shift is essential. The entrenched values that permeate and compromise the entire document suggest that only a comprehensive rewrite could enable the constitution to authentically reflect the original ideals of the liberation war, ideals that serve neither any particular person’s interest nor any party’s ideology.

Though rewriting a constitution is a significant undertaking requiring thorough justification, the way the 1972 constitution embeds elements that diverge from the Liberation War’s spirit — elements that cater to specific interests over a genuinely inclusive national ethos — suggests that rewriting may be more appropriate than simple or substantial reformation. A rewritten constitution could better align with the ideals of the 1971 Proclamation and more effectively support democratic governance.

What would a rewrite of the constitution entail, and why is it necessary? A comprehensive constitutional rewrite would mean re-examining each element of the document to build a democratic framework from the ground up. This new constitution would need to incorporate the ideals of equality, human dignity, and social justice that inspired the Liberation War and implement safeguards to prevent power consolidation. By starting anew, Bangladesh could craft a constitutional framework that genuinely respects the aspirations of its people rather than historical political interests.

A new constitution would also serve as a symbolic reaffirmation of the liberation war’s values, honouring those who sacrificed for these ideals. This symbolic aspect is no less important than the legal ramifications, as it represents a collective reimagining of national identity and purpose.

Creating a new constitution, however, is not simple. It requires broad consensus, thoughtful debate, and transparency involving diverse voices across Bangladeshi society to ensure that the new document reflects the will of the people rather than a single political ideology or interest. In this way, a new constitution could serve as a bulwark against the cycle of authoritarian governance that has plagued Bangladesh’s history.

While it’s true that a constitution alone, however perfect it is, cannot guarantee democracy, it does provide the essential framework upon which democratic culture and public commitment to democratic principles can grow. Some might argue that rewriting Bangladesh’s constitution risks greater instability in an already politically volatile nation. However, much of the current instability stems from authoritarian abuses embedded in the existing constitutional structure. A new constitution, with strong democratic checks and balances, could actually serve as a stabilising force by dismantling mechanisms that allow power consolidation and political centralization. This foundational change would give Bangladesh a chance to build a political environment rooted in democratic integrity. It would create the essential space for political culture, education, and public awareness to flourish around democratic values instead of being eroded by partisan interests.

In fine, the case for a new constitution in Bangladesh is not merely about legal reform but about reimagining the nation’s political identity. Crafting a document that embodies the genuine spirit of the liberation war and the principles of a democratic society would pave the way towards a future free from authoritarianism. The question, then, is no longer merely whether the constitution needs reform but rather how it should be rewritten to lay the foundation for a genuinely democratic Bangladesh and who is entitled to undertake this task.

Ìý

Kazi ASM Nurul Huda is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Dhaka. He holds a PhD in philosophy from the University of Oklahoma, USA.