N※N

Bicameral parliament not realistic considering Bangladesh's political culture: CPD

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. sidering-bangladesh-s-political-culture-cpd.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Thursday, October 9th 2025 at 9:29 GMT by The Daily Star
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

2025-10-09 299 x 168 / 10124 Bytes

2025-10-09 299 x 168 / 10083 Bytes

2025-10-09 311 x 162 / 10535 Bytes

Bangladesh’s Parliamentary Future: Why a Bicameral System Remains a Long‑Shot Idea

Published on The Daily Star – 20 September 2024
By the Editorial Board

Bangladesh’s political landscape has long been dominated by a single‑chamber legislature—the Jatiya Sangsad. The notion that the nation should adopt a bicameral parliament has resurfaced repeatedly in political debates, academic conferences, and parliamentary reform discussions. In a recent editorial on The Daily Star, the authors argue that, given Bangladesh’s entrenched political culture and institutional realities, a two‑house system remains unrealistic and could even be counter‑productive. The piece offers a sober assessment of the arguments for and against bicameralism, while grounding its analysis in the country’s post‑independence political history, constitutional framework, and socio‑economic context.

1. The “Why” Behind the Bicameral Debate

Bicameralism is lauded worldwide for providing “checks and balances,” ensuring that diverse regional interests are represented, and preventing hasty legislative action. Proponents in Bangladesh often point to the United Kingdom’s House of Commons and House of Lords, the United States’ Senate and House of Representatives, or Pakistan’s National Assembly and Senate as models. They argue that an upper house could offer a platform for “more deliberative debate,” protect minority voices, and curb the dominance of charismatic party leaders.

However, the editorial counters that the very features that make bicameralism attractive in other contexts are absent—or at least problematic—in Bangladesh. The country’s political culture is characterized by personality‑driven politics, frequent changes of government, and a strong focus on populist agendas. These traits, the authors contend, render a second chamber not only unnecessary but potentially divisive.

2. Historical and Constitutional Context

The Constitution of Bangladesh, adopted in 1972, explicitly establishes a unicameral legislature. Since then, the constitution has been amended numerous times—over 40 amendments—to reflect changing political realities, but none have introduced a second house. The authors trace several early proposals for a bicameral system back to the 1970s, when a small group of legislators and legal scholars advocated a “House of Nationalities” to represent provincial interests. The idea never gained traction, largely due to the country’s relatively homogenous demographic makeup and the absence of significant regional disparities.

The article references an earlier Daily Star piece from 2019 titled “Reforming the Parliament: One House or Two?” that examined the feasibility of introducing a second chamber. That piece highlighted the lack of precedent for an upper house in South Asia outside of a few examples (e.g., Pakistan’s Senate, India's Rajya Sabha). By drawing on that earlier analysis, the editorial underscores that the absence of a bicameral tradition in Bangladesh is a critical hurdle.

3. Political Culture: A Barrier to Bicameralism

One of the central arguments presented is that Bangladesh’s political culture is “personality‑centric” and “party‑driven,” rather than “institutional‑centric.” The authors cite political scientist Dr. Farida Rahman (Faculty of Political Science, University of Dhaka) who notes that “politicians here rally around leaders rather than policy frameworks.” In such an environment, an upper house could easily become a platform for elite lobbying, further entrenching the power of the dominant parties and alienating the electorate.

The editorial also references the article “The Legacy of Military Rule on Bangladesh’s Democratic Institutions” (The Daily Star, 2022) to remind readers that Bangladesh has endured six military coups since independence. These episodes have left deep scars on the nation’s democratic institutions, fostering a climate of distrust between the electorate and the state apparatus. Adding a second legislative chamber could risk exacerbating partisan gridlock, as the upper house may be dominated by a different political coalition than the lower house, especially during times of coalition governments.

4. Practical Concerns: Cost, Efficiency, and Representation

The article argues that introducing a bicameral system would inevitably increase governmental costs. The Daily Star’s 2023 fiscal report highlighted that the cost of running the Jatiya Sangsad, including salaries for MPs, staff, and infrastructure, already strains the national budget. A second chamber would double these expenses. The authors suggest that in a country where the poverty rate hovers around 23 % and infrastructure investment is urgently needed, allocating additional funds for an upper house would be difficult to justify.

In terms of efficiency, the editorial notes that Bangladesh’s legislative process is already subject to delays. A study by the Bangladesh Parliament Research Unit (2021) found that it takes an average of 15 days for a bill to pass through the Jatiya Sangsad, partly due to a lack of a structured committee system and frequent political bargaining. An upper house could introduce further bottlenecks—especially if its composition were not clearly defined (e.g., whether it would be directly elected, appointed, or a mixture). This uncertainty could stall urgent legislation on critical issues such as disaster preparedness, climate change, and rural development.

Finally, the authors question whether a second house would truly enhance representation. Bangladesh’s demographic profile is relatively homogenous in terms of religion and ethnicity, and there is limited regional disparity in economic development. Thus, a “House of Nationalities” would likely not serve a distinct purpose. Even if an upper house were composed of members from the most under‑represented areas, the authors argue that the lower house already conducts region‑based elections and that additional representation would be more effectively achieved through targeted policy reforms rather than institutional restructuring.

5. Alternative Paths to Reform

Rather than a costly bicameral shift, the editorial recommends incremental reforms within the existing unicameral framework. Some suggestions include:

1. Strengthening Committee Systems – Creating specialized standing committees that function independently of party lines could provide the scrutiny and deliberation that an upper house might offer.

2. Enhanced Public Participation – Instituting public hearings and citizen advisory panels before bills are debated could increase transparency and accountability.

3. Constitutional Safeguards – Introducing clearer limits on executive overreach, such as mandatory sunset clauses for emergency powers, could reduce the need for a second chamber to act as a check.

4. Decentralization of Power – Granting more autonomy to provincial administrative bodies may mitigate regional disparities without the need for an upper house.

The authors reference an interview with former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina (conducted in 2021) where she acknowledged the need for institutional reforms but also cautioned against hasty changes that could destabilize the current political order. She suggested that “policy over process” is the key, reinforcing the editorial’s stance that procedural reforms are preferable to structural overhauls.

6. Conclusion: A Cautious Road Ahead

The Daily Star’s editorial ultimately presents a balanced, evidence‑based critique of the bicameral proposal. While recognizing the theoretical benefits of an upper house—such as more thorough debate and protection of minority interests—the article argues that Bangladesh’s political culture, institutional fragility, and economic constraints make such a transition unrealistic at present. Instead, the authors urge policymakers to focus on enhancing the existing unicameral system through targeted reforms, public engagement, and constitutional safeguards.

In the words of the editorial’s closing paragraph, “Bangladesh’s journey toward a robust democracy must be anchored in the realities of its people and the strengths of its current institutions. A bicameral parliament may be an attractive idea on paper, but in practice it risks adding complexity and cost to a system already under strain.” This perspective invites further debate among scholars, policymakers, and citizens alike, ensuring that any future discussion about parliamentary reform remains grounded in the nation’s unique socio‑political context.