A recent study by the Centre for Policy Dialogue recommended that the government should drop the proposal for an upper house in the Jatiya Sangsad to keep it a unicameral parliament.
The CPD on Thursday revealed the study at a dialogue titled 鈥楶roposed Upper House in the National Parliament: Can it Ensure Accountability of the Majority Party?鈥� held at a hotel in Dhaka.
The analysis drew on cross-country experiences and critiques of bicameral systems, eventually sounding caution over the complexities in its potential implementation.
With CPD distinguished Fellow Rounaq Jahan in the chair, political leaders, academics, and diplomats took part and expressed dissenting opinions on the recommendation.
Instead of going for a bicameral legislative organ, the CPD urged that reforms should be prioritised to make the existing unicameral parliament more effective and accountable.
The study said that parliamentary mechanisms should rather be strengthened by making standing committees more functional, ensuring a better use of floor-crossing provisions, and enhancing the effectiveness of the prime minister鈥檚 question-answer sessions.
The study also underscored the need for greater transparency in political party financing and more openness and accountability in the execution of government responsibilities.
The analysis warned that introducing an upper chamber in the existing political culture could result in manipulation and misuse.
Although the concept, it observed, might appear theoretically appealing, it carries significant risks in a political environment characterised by deep-rooted partisanship and entrenched patronage systems.
Presenting the findings, CPD research director Khondaker Golam Moazzem said that Bangladesh鈥檚 political environment and institutional capacity were not yet suited to accommodate an upper chamber in the Jatiya Sangsad.
He stressed the importance of broader institutional reforms, particularly in the judiciary, local government, electoral system, and political parties, which he considered far more essential for strengthening democracy.
On the other hand, National Consensus Commission member Badiul Alam Majumdar dubbed the establishment of an upper house as a necessary mechanism to introduce genuine checks and balances in the parliamentary system, aimed at preventing the majority party from gaining excessive and 鈥榙emonic鈥� power.
He claimed that a key reason why ousted prime minister Sheikh Hasina had gained demonic power was the passage of the constitution鈥檚 Fifteenth Amendment, abolishing the caretaker government system.
Badiul said that had an upper house existed at the time, it would have been almost impossible for the amendment to be passed.
The upper chamber, he observed, could have acted as an institutional safeguard against the domination of a single political force and helped ensure accountability within the system.
He further observed that such a body would moderate the lawmaking process by providing spaces for calm, rational reviews rather than emotional or vindictive legislation.
While the upper house would not have the outright authority to block laws, it could return bills to the lower house with comments and observations for further consideration before the final passage, Badiul said.
Communist Party of Bangladesh former general secretary Ruhin Hossain Prince stated that his party did not consider an upper house necessary for Bangladesh at the moment.
He described an upper house as a potential white elephant, commenting that it could result in 100 new zamindars and serve the interests of a few rather than the public.
He also raised concerns over horse trading, proportional representation, and the likelihood that the chamber would fail to bring meaningful societal change.
Prince urged that the attention should be redirected to strengthening the national parliament and local government.
Ganosamhati Andolan executive coordinator Abul Hassan Rubel stated that his organisation had been advocating for an upper house since 2022.
He said that even without legislative powers, such a chamber would provide an opportunity for thoughtful consideration and trial-and-error within a more democratic process, which he believed would be beneficial for Bangladesh.
National Citizen Party member secretary Akhter Hossen highlighted the potential utility of an upper house in Bangladesh, particularly as a mechanism to provide checks and balances in the legislative process.
He cautioned that the country had faced challenges when constitutional amendments were driven by the interests of a single party, rather than representing the collective will of the people.
Akhter further argued that an upper house, if formed with proportional representation, could offer a platform for reviews and discussions, even if it would not have the power to block legislation entirely.
Bangladesh Nationalist Party organising secretary Shama Obaid voiced support for introducing an upper house, saying that it would enhance parliamentary accountability and inclusivity.
She stressed that political reform was essential after 17 years under challenging circumstances and highlighted that a more transparent and participatory parliament, along with measures like revising the constitution鈥檚 Article 70, would strengthen democratic governance.
European Union ambassador Michael Miller underlined the EU support for Bangladesh鈥檚 political transition ahead of the next year鈥檚 elections, saying that the establishment of an upper house, while a domestic decision, could play a key role in enhancing parliamentary accountability.
He highlighted five key areas for improving accountability: robust committee scrutiny, evidence-based lawmaking with public consultations, credible budget oversight, timely responses to parliamentary scrutinies, and accessible data for MPs, the media, and citizens.