We witnessed consequences of one-party rule, what about a unilateral reform now?

Are the advisers, or a few of them of the interim government, formed on 8 August following the ouster of Sheikh Hasina by a student-mass uprising, breaching their oaths?

To have an answer, we need to understand both the context and the content of their oath they took to take over guardianship of 180 million people of Bangladesh.

The context is Sheikh Hasina's ouster and subsequent developments.

Coupled with intense public anger from the past for misrule, the deaths of hundreds of people resulted in Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina being forced to resign on 5 August. With students and the public marching towards her residence, Ganabhaban, she had to leave the country.

Within an hour, the army chief announced the formation of an interim government as soon as possible.

The President accepted the Prime Minister's resignation and dissolved the national parliament the next day. He then sent a reference to the Appellate Division, which, as the supreme interpreter of the constitution, provided legal validity for forming an interim government.

According to Article 106 of the Constitution, the President can seek the opinion of the Appellate Division on any important matter. In the context of the Prime Minister's resignation and the dissolution of the parliament, the President sought the opinion of the Appellate Division regarding the formation of the next government.

A press release from the Supreme Court's public relations division stated, "On Thursday, a letter from the Ministry of Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs requested the Supreme Court's opinion on forming an interim government. In response, the Supreme Court opined that an interim government could be formed, and the appointment and oath-taking of the Chief Advisor and other advisors could take place" (Daily Prothom Alo).

This means that the current government is a legitimate one under the present constitution. They took their oath under this constitution and they are its temporary protectors.

Since they are not elected and were sworn-in during a special situation following a mass uprising, and because they are an interim government, they did not take the oath as Prime Minister or ministers. They took their oath as Chief Adviser or advisers.

All of them took the oath according to Article 148(2) of the Constitution, which outlines the oath for the Prime Minister and other ministers. The Chief Adviser replaced the word "Prime Minister," and the advisers the word "Minister" while they uttered the oath-words.

The oath sentences read: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Prime Minister (or as applicable, Minister, State Minister, or Deputy Minister) according to law; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Bangladesh; that I will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution; and that I will do right to all manner of people according to law, without fear or favour, affection, or ill-will."

All parts of this oath are important. We want to discuss two aspects:

1. "I will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution."
2. "I will do right to all manner of people according to law, without fear or favour, affection, or ill-will."

The first point means that the current advisory council cannot do anything that:

a. Does not preserve the constitution,
b. Does not protect the constitution,
c. Does not defend the constitution.

The government has formed a constitutional reform commission, which they can do under the current constitution because it is reform.

But can they develop a new constitution? Can they rewrite the constitution? 

According to the constitution they have formed the government and taken their oath under, they cannot do that. Because their oath states that they will "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution."

Since the interim government has not yet mentioned rewriting the constitution or developing a new one but only reforming it, it can be said that the government is on the right track.

However, the issue lies elsewhere.

The head of the constitutional reform commission, Dr Shahdeen Malik, a constitutional expert, has been replaced by political scientist Professor Dr Ali Riaz, who has been advocating rewriting the constitution.

Recently, at an event in Dhaka, my direct teacher Ali Riaz explained his position.

Professor Ali Riaz, a distinguished professor of the Department of Politics and Government at Illinois State University in the United States, remarked that rewriting the constitution is essential, even if it requires a Constitutional Assembly, to fix the democratic institutions of the state. He stated, "My personal opinion is that the constitution needs to be rewritten. You cannot fix the state's institutions otherwise" (Daily Samakal).

He explained: "I am talking about rewriting the constitution because there is no way to amend it. The current constitution cannot be amended in a comprehensive way because a third of it is written in a manner that cannot be changed. There are issues in it that need to be removed to make any changes. That is why the term 'rewriting' is coming up. I am suggesting a Constitutional Assembly as a way to rewrite it. I am not aware of any other way" (Daily Samakal).

As head of the reform commission, he will surely listen to all parties and then prepare his recommendations. However, many will have questions: why would a government formed under the current constitution and responsible to preserve, protect and defend the constitution has appointed a commission head who wants to rewrite that very constitution?

Questions are also being raised: Has the government that swore to "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution" decided not to "preserve" it, not to "support" it, and not to ensure its "defence"?

When a revolution forms a new government, that government doesn't preserve anything from before, including the constitution, nor does it consider constitutional legitimacy. But all these things have been considered here in Bangladesh. As Dr Ali Riaz stated, what happened on August 5 was not a revolution or a second independence; it was a mass uprising.

He mentioned in an interview: "It is a mass uprising, a people's uprising. It is a mass uprising because autocracy was overthrown with the participation of people from all walks of life. I will not call it a revolution because, after a revolution, the leaders of the movement form the government. That did not happen here. I would not call it a second independence either, because I want to keep the Liberation War of 1971 above everything else. The 1990 mass uprising was also called a second independence. This time, the achievement of the people of Bangladesh is a challenge to the autocratic system. It has been achieved through public participation, so I call it a mass uprising" (The Daily Star).

Are we heading towards rewriting the constitution with the government formed through this mass uprising? The current government is expected to be given legitimacy even if this new constitution is finalised. However, it will not happen quickly (chot kore) although there are talks of excluding (toop kore) a particular section from this process.

We have seen a statement from Adviser Asif Nazrul. Though not as directly as Ali Riaz, Prof. Dr. Asif Nazrul is also my teacher as he is a faculty member at Dhaka University.

Asif Nazrul stated that discussions about reforms will be held with all political parties except the Awami League, which has committed genocide, killed over a thousand people, injured thousands more, and fled the country in fear of prosecution. There will be no discussion with them. That is our clear stance (Bangla Tribune).

No one will likely disagree with him regarding the crimes of the Awami League government. They had to leave not just because of their loss of power but also because of their crimes, such as the killing of democracy, extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances, corruption, looting, and the mass killing of students and civilians in July and August. Their crimes must be tried, and the process of their trial has begun.

The student-public uprising has entrusted the current government with that responsibility. The judiciary will undoubtedly perform its duty, and the public want to see that.

But can an adviser who took an oath to "do right to all manner of people according to law, without fear or favour, affection, or ill-will," use "ill-will" to exclude any party from the policy-making process? Will that be considered "right to all manner of people"?

Again, it is not just him alone. Adviser Asif Nazrul stated, "This is our clear stance," which means this is the position of the advisory council.

So, what is the difference between them and the previous "autocratic and fascist" government? Holding criminals accountable is one thing, but excluding a party with "ill-will" and not conducting "rightful" behaviour is another.

Here we can recall Asif Nazrul's earlier statement as an adviser.

He said, "The Awami League is the party that led the struggle for independence in Bangladesh, and it contributed to various democratic movements. What they have done in the last 15 years does not align with their tradition, nor with the spirit of the Liberation War. They have established one of the most barbaric forms of fascism in Bangladesh's history. There may be individual accountability for these actions, and leaders may bear collective responsibility. Personally, I do not think it is appropriate to ban the Awami League as a party" (Prothom Alo).

This means that while he sees "individual and collective responsibility" for the establishment of the "most barbaric fascism," he does not hold the Awami League as a party responsible (his personal opinion). However, now, when it comes to reforms, the government seems unwilling to consider the opinions of 50% of the political workforce out of "ill-will."

If the new constitution is for the next few years, it might be okay to ignore that faction. But if it is being considered for the future, how logical is it to exclude a political force? Bangladesh has made this mistake in the past, multiple times. Does the current government also want to do that?

It must be remembered that the Awami League had established almost a one-party rule, and they are paying for it and will pay even more when the trials begin in court. They are facing the consequences of one-party rule, and will continue to do so.

But what will happen if the current government tries to establish a one-sided governance now? Will excluding one major political force out of the reform process bring any sustainable reform for a long time? Will the consequences in the future be favourable either?

Bangladesh does not mean just the lifetime of one generation. Remember that despite doing everything possible to stay in power for life, Sheikh Hasina could not remain in control for more than 15 years.