Is limiting PMs to two consecutive terms a feasible idea?
A critical mind cannot help but question the prospect of its implementation given the political culture of our country, let alone the subcontinent
Recently, we have seen news stories about a suggestion to restrict the PM's office to two consecutive terms for an elected political leader. The idea was first proposed by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) at its press conference on 23 January 2023. This was their fifth demand in a 31-point comprehensive outline for the structural reforms of the state. Few people took note of this proposition at the time.
After the fall of the Hasina administration on 5 August 2024, the demands for a constitutional amendment have grown popular. BNP has reiterated its stand on the issue again. Moreover, several political parties met with the Chief Advisor on 31 August and urged him to consider this constitutional amendment.
Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) also recommended a provision that would limit an individual from serving as prime minister for more than two terms.
Undoubtedly, some members of our civil society and some political parties have taken the idea of limiting the PM's office to two consecutive terms seriously. However, a critical mind cannot help but question the prospect of its implementation given the political culture of our country, let alone the subcontinent.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
Do we really need a constitutional amendment to limit the PM's tenure to two consecutive terms? Is there any solid political justification behind this?
In Awami League (AL)'s 6th party convention on 25 January 1966, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was chosen as the party president for the first time. After he was assassinated in 1975, Sheikh Hasina was brought back from India to prevent party disintegration.
The same story is echoed in the history of BNP, the other party dominating the country's politics. We can also include Jatiyo Party (JP) in this category, where two of its factions are currently led by late Hussain Muhammad Ershad's wife and brother, respectively.
How will our political parties follow this constitutional provision when they are unable to give up their dynastic leadership culture? Their activities remind us of the organisational culture of a 'gang,' not a democratic political party in a civilised country.
In this context, three aspects of this proposed constitutional amendment demand critical consideration before it can be accepted as a subject for public debate and discussion:
1) The premise on which this amendment proposal stands
2) The political rationale that justifies this proposed constitutional amendment
3) Its theoretical consistency in a parliamentary system of governance
Let us first consider the general premise on which this proposition is founded. Article 65(3) states that a parliament shall be elected for five years, suggesting the person sworn in as the PM shall also hold office for five years from the time of its first session. By this premise, two consecutive terms mean 10 years.
This is, however, an incorrect interpretation of the constitution because the five-year period is the maximum tenure of an elected PM, not the actual tenure. This point becomes crystal clear when we look at Article 57(2): "If the Prime Minister ceases to retain the support of a majority of the members of Parliament, he shall either resign his office or advise the President in writing to dissolve Parliament and if he so advises the President shall, if he is satisfied that no other member of Parliament commands the support of the majority of the members of Parliament, dissolve Parliament accordingly."
Secondly, the political justification for this constitutional amendment is unclear. We have been practising the current constitutional provision since 1973, when parliamentary elections were first held. This Constitutional Convention was never questioned until BNP and its allies brought it in January last year.
Thirdly, the most critical issue that remains entirely unfocused is whether limiting the PM's terms is consistent with the principles of the parliamentary system of democracy. We can dive into the history of modern political philosophy to see the political worthiness of this idea.
The theory of modern democratic governance began with English philosopher John Locke in the 17th century. In the Second Treatise on Government, Locke rephrased Hobbes' social contract theory, which may be stated as follows:
'To protect their lives, liberty, and property, people establish the state (civil society in Locke's terminology) through a social contract and surrender their personal power to it. Accordingly, the state becomes a sovereign civil association owned by the people. This sovereign power is vested in the political organisation, called the government, that periodically elected fellow citizens administer.'
In the parliamentary system, voters do not directly elect the Prime Minister; they elect the parliament members (MP). The political party or coalition commanding majority seats in parliament becomes eligible to form the political component of the executive branch.
Accordingly, a political party, headed by the president or chairperson, fields its candidates in different electoral districts to win the most seats possible. On their part, people vote for the party whose leader they want to occupy the PMO. The electoral process of choosing the PM position is very democratic, but they are not elected directly. The party chooses them because the party leader can be changed anytime.
The above reasoning suggests the proposed constitutional amendment is inconsistent with the principle of parliamentary democracy.
The democratic justification behind this constitutional amendment is weak. After the first term, voters may reject a PM if their performance seems unsatisfactory. On the other hand, they might want a particular leader to continue holding the PMO, as long as their health permits. Since people own the government, the constitution cannot have any provision interfering with voters' freedom of choice.
Khandakar Qudrat-I Elahi is a retired faculty member of the Bangladesh Agricultural University.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard
