The interim government in Bangladesh, headed by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, faces mounting criticism for its failure to initiate democratic elections and its controversial constitutional reform plans. As social unrest grows, major political parties and citizens demand a return to democracy amid fears of authoritarianism and economic instability. Given this context, I talked to Bangladeshi-Swedish writer Anisur Rahman about different aspects of the initiative to change the country’s constitution while the defacto-government itself is unconstitutional.
The interim government of Bangladesh, formed under the leadership of Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus following the collapse of the Sheikh Hasina regime in early August 2024, is facing increasing disapproval for its perceived inaction in organizing democratic elections. Instead of focusing on paving the way for free and fair elections, the government has been embroiled in efforts to establish a Constitutional Reform Commission, attracting significant controversy.
This move to amend the constitution, seen by many as a strategy to extend the interim government’s rule, has drawn criticism from various quarters. Critics argue that the government prioritizes constitutional reform over pressing national concerns such as inflation, unemployment, societal safety, and economic revitalization. The frustration among citizens is palpable as they call for stability and immediate action to address their daily challenges.
In order to understand these issues at a deeper level, I interviewed Bangladeshi-Swedish writer Anisur Rahman, who provided critical insights into the potential repercussions of the government’s constitutional reform plans.
Ashish Singh: What kind of constitutional changes have been proposed by the interim government?
Anisur Rahman: The interim regime has not formally announced the kind of proposals. However, various individuals within this government are scatteringly making statements about what is to happen. All these sound contradictory to the country’s existing constitution.
The ambiguity of these proposals has only heightened public concern, with many fearing that they could lead to heightened political instability and even provoke grassroots anarchy.
Ashish Singh: What impact are they going to have?
Anisur Rahman: The impact will be nothing good. It will invite wholesale anarchy over the country. The discussions promoted by the people favoring this unconstitutional regime sound confusing, abnormal, and unrealistic. Some notable figures are visibly identified as the ‘think tanks’ for fanatic and chaotic politics in Bangladesh.
These individuals, once considered intellectual leaders, now find themselves accused of contributing to the chaotic political climate. Their previous records suggest a lack of consistency and integrity in their ideologies, further muddying the political waters.
Ashish Singh: What reactions are different political parties giving on these changes?
Anisur Rahman: Major political coalitions like the Bangladesh Nationalist Party1-led alliance and the Awami League2-led 14-party jote are against the move for constitutional change. Instead, they stand for earlier general elections. Thereafter, an elected parliament can decide over any possible and needful change in the constitution.
This stance contrasts with the limited support from smaller Islamist and leftist parties, which have minimal public backing yet advocate for constitutional reform. The lack of broad-based support for these changes underscores the tension between political factions and the public’s desire for legitimate governance.
Ashish Singh: What types of changes have previous regimes brought in to favor themselves? Are the proposed changes in line with benefiting particular groups?
Anisur Rahman: The changes were made 16 times in the last 50 years. The first constitution was one of the best constitutions in the world. It was for parliamentary democracy as per the British Westminster model. It had four basic principles: democracy, nationalism, socialism, and secularism.
The first change was made in 1975 to introduce a presidential government instead of a cabinet-led government. Later on a number of changes were made by the military autocrats from 1975-1990 to legitimise their unconstitutional politics as well as to divert the country’s main principles towards being a capitalist Islamist country.
All the four principles were disturbed drastically. Islam was recognised as the state religion in place of secularism in the 1980s. Socialism was removed. Democracy and Nationalism remained simply as terms without any effect. After the end of military autocracy, in the beginning of 1990s, a constitunal change was done to restore parliamentary as well as cabinet-led governments. For this, there was consensus among all major parties including the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party.
Another constitutional change took place in 1996 to introduce the so-callled ”non-part caretaker government” to run routine administration as well as hold general elections following the end of every mandate period. This caretaker government was removed from the constitution in the early 2010s.
This time the ruling Awami League coalition had an intention to restore the spirit of 1972-constitution. However, it failed to upheld secularism and socialism.
This change invited some confusion also. As per the latest change, secularism is back in the constitution now. At the same time it recognizes Islam as the state religion. In the draft, the parliamentary committee proposed for the restoration of all the four initial principles. However, the Awami League-led ruling coalition compromised with the Islamist groups’ demand to add Islam as the state religion. It is contradictory to the constitution as well as to the Awami League’s political ideology.
Historically, constitutional amendments have often been tailored to suit ruling party interests. Changes have shifted governance models and altered fundamental state principles, frequently swinging between sectarian and secular philosophies based on the ruling coalition at the time.
Ashish Singh: Does the interim government intend to change the structure and functioning of the state machinery?
Anisur Rahman: This interim government is illegitimate and unconstitutional. The elements in this regime are always looking for an escape route. That is why they behave like mad dogs.
First of all, the Yunus regime does not have any mandate to changethe existing constituion. It is out of their jurisdiction. They are illegitimate as well as unconstituinal. If there is consensus, they simply can make some proposals for needful constitutional change. The upcoming elected parliament may consider those proposals and incorporate them in the constitution throgh due process.
The entire discussion and move for constitutional change or reform is a baseless issue. This regime made a constitutional reform commission with a US citizen and controversial academic called Ali Riaz. Bangladesh is not a US colony. It makes no sense to have a constitutional reform commission with an US American citizen.
The current interim government’s legitimacy has been a subject of intense debate. By overstepping its provisional role, it risks deepening the existing political crisis. Attempts to draft an ‘Indemnity Ordinance’ to shield itself from legal challenges are perceived by many as indicative of authoritarian overreach. The ordinance specifies that the caretaker administration will remain in power until a new prime minister is appointed by the 13th Parliament, with no fixed term outlined.
Meanwhile, essential state machinery and public services suffer. Law and order have deteriorated, and unemployment rates rise amid stories of public discontent. The economic landscape further darkens as trade industries falter, driving exports to neighboring countries and painting a grim picture for future economic recovery.
If they fail to have political consensus among major political parties like the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Awami League, they will be at risk and they have to face trial. For this fact, they are desperately thinking of their fate.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the interim government, once viewed as a transitional beacon under the leadership of Muhammad Yunus, now finds itself amid escalating criticisms and fears of authoritarian intent. As calls for democracy grow louder from political parties and the populace alike, Bangladesh stands at a decisive juncture where reaffirming its commitment to democratic principles is crucial. The nation appears to be in dire need of a comprehensive reset, guided by transparent governance and a steadfast return to foundational democratic values.