Criticism of the Constitution of Bangladesh
[19] Critics argued that the Constitution, due to poorly-defined fundamental rights, has enabled the continued enforcement of the repressive sections of British colonial laws such as the Penal Code of 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898, and facilitated the enactment of post-independence repressive laws such as the Special Powers Act of 1974, and the Cyber Security Act of 2023.
[26][27] After the mass uprising in 2024, the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement and the Jatiya Nagorik Committee put forward a five-point demand, including the abolishment of the 1972 Constitution.
Without robust procedural safeguards or judicial recourse, preventive detention powers are often used to target dissenting voices or political opponents, potentially undermining democratic principles and freedom of expression.
The government has, at times, suppressed labor rights movements under the guise of maintaining public order, thereby limiting workers' ability to collectively bargain for better wages and working conditions.
The government has often invoked public order and security concerns to restrict the activities of political parties and their ability to hold peaceful assemblies.
Courts have at times upheld restrictions on speech deemed critical of the government or “anti-state,” leading to self-censorship and a chilling effect on public discourse.
Article 46 grants the Jatiya Sangsad the authority to indemnify individuals involved in human rights violations, effectively shielding them from legal consequences.
The Joint Drive Indemnity Act of 2003 exemplifies the potential misuse of Article 46, enabling Parliament to protect state actors from accountability for serious abuses.
This structure seems democratic but, in practice, results in a concentration of authority in the hands of the prime minister due to the dominant position within the Cabinet and the control over MPs through party discipline.
[18] Article 70 prohibits MPs from voting against their party in Parliament, effectively granting the prime minister significant control over the legislative branch.
"[22][23][24][25] Umar offered pointed criticisms of the Constitution, focusing on how the document and its drafting process failed to address the needs and aspirations of the broader masses who fought for independence in 1971.
His critique centers on the Constitution's ideological alignment and the influence of elite political interests over the genuine demands for social and economic justice that emerged from the Liberation War.
[45] Umar argued that the Constitution, crafted largely under the leadership of the Awami League and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, reflected the interests of the political elite rather than those of the workers, peasants, and marginalized groups who formed the backbone of the independence struggle.
This continuity, he believed, allowed for the persistence of power concentration in the hands of the elite, with insufficient decentralization and democratic engagement at the grassroots level.
Mazhar emphasized that the Constitution's framework was influenced by colonial concepts, which he believed are inherently inadequate for addressing the political realities of post-independence Bangladesh.
[52] He argued that this legacy of colonial thought led to the continuation of a state structure that privileges central authority and failed to fully embrace the rights and aspirations of marginalized communities, such as indigenous groups in the Chittagong Hill Tracts.
He questions whether the state's commitment to secularism was more about suppressing Islamist opposition than about genuinely accommodating diverse religious beliefs within the national framework.
