The proposed amendment to Article 70 of Bangladesh's Constitution has become a topic of intense discussion not only within the Constitutional Reform Commission but also among various political parties.
The Commission, which recently recommended amendments to this article, has seen varying opinions emerge from political leaders.
Dr Ali Riaz, head of the Constitutional Reform Commission, stated last Thursday that the recommendation to amend Article 70 aims to introduce a balance of power within the state machinery.
While the Commission’s proposal is still under deliberation, political parties have presented opposing views on its potential impact.
Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) has expressed support for relaxing the restrictions on floor-crossing in the hope of making parliament more effective.
However, they propose that MPs be prohibited from voting against the party on matters such as trust votes, finance bills, constitutional amendments, and national security issues.
This position aligns with BNP’s 31-point framework, where they advocate for MPs' freedom of expression on all other matters.
Salahuddin Ahmed, a member of BNP’s Standing Committee and head of the Constitutional Reform Committee, elaborated on this stance, stating, "While we believe that allowing MPs to vote independently on most matters is crucial for ensuring democracy, certain national issues, such as trust votes and budget bills, must remain within party lines to maintain political stability."
In contrast, the Jamaat-e-Islami party opposes the notion of loosening floor-crossing restrictions, suggesting that these provisions were initially included to preserve the stability of parliamentary governance.
They have proposed retaining these restrictions for an additional two terms before reconsidering their stance.
Professor Mia Golam Parwar, Jamaat’s secretary-general, highlighted that they had submitted their written proposals to the commission, but the final decision rests with the government.
He emphasised that whether the article remains in place or is amended, it must be done in a manner that ensures a pragmatic and inclusive solution.
Under the existing Article 70 of the constitution, any member of parliament who resigns from their party or votes against it in parliament faces the potential loss of their seat. However, they are not rendered ineligible for future elections.
This provision has sparked concerns among many political parties, leading to calls for its revision or outright removal.
Meanwhile, the Jatiya Party (JP) has proposed a framework inspired by India’s parliamentary system.
Under this proposal, any dissent against the party’s stance would require the agreement of at least one-third of the party’s MPs.
They believe that this would prevent the destabilisation of political parties, making MPs less susceptible to manipulation.
Jatiyo Party Chairman GM Quader shared his thoughts with the media, suggesting that restricting Article 70 only to critical national issues, such as forming a government and approving the budget, would allow MPs more independence without undermining party integrity.
Political parties, including the Islamic Andolon Bangladesh, JSD, and Citizens’ Unity, have voiced their concerns about the broader implications of Article 70. While some have called for complete abolition, others advocate for amending only certain provisions to safeguard the interests of both political stability and MPs' independence.
In the midst of these debates, the commission remains engaged in consultations with 34 political parties, many of which have called for either the abolition or modification of Article 70.
Some parties, however, have emphasised the need for careful deliberation to avoid unintended consequences that could destabilise the political landscape.
The debate over the amendment to Article 70 reflects a broader discourse on balancing power, ensuring political stability, and protecting individual rights within Bangladesh’s parliamentary democracy.
As discussions continue, all eyes are on the Constitutional Reform Commission to navigate these contentious views and find a resolution that serves the nation’s best interests.
