Bangladesh Socio-Political Crisis 2024

[Al-Zakir]

Now Im confident we will get a well balanced constitution.

This advisory group is increasingly becoming senor citizen club.

I understood we need experienced people but I need to see some Jalali personalities included in that cabinet. I mean, this suppose to be an Inquilabi goverment.

 

[AbuShalehRumi]

This advisory group is increasing becoming senor citizen club.

I understood we need experienced people but I need to see some Jalali personalities included in that cabinet. I mean, this suppose to be an Inquilabi goverment.

Our CA MD Yunus refused to call himself a senior citizen. He is a ever green young man in his mind. Does that count?

 

[Fallstuff]

Try to walk with every bone in your body is broken. That’s the status of the BD Govt.
It is going to take time.

 

[Al-Zakir]

Our CA MD Yunus refused to call himself a senior citizen. He is a ever green young man in his mind. Does that count?

Lol, he is excluded. I have reservations on some of the advisors especially those who were part of 1/11 government led by midget Fakru.

 

[Strider]

It simply isn't possible to stand against social processes. The Awami League had support, it did not parachute into power. It gave way to two dictatorships, one of which was thinly disguised as a political party in power. That alternative political party also enjoyed the support of people. So both the marquee parties had support.

At the moment, the support for the Awami League is rock-bottom minimum, and there are no signs of recovery. That itself is bad for your constitution-making process, because whether the new constitution that you have proposed is drawn up by a constituent assembly (an elected body), or by the interim government, through consultations, or by a constitutional convention, that I take to mean a gathering of political parties by invitation from the interim government and without election, there will be bias, bias inviting a future autocracy.

Where will any country find a universal formula that defies the ravages of time, the changes in the neighbourhood, the developments in the country's economy and ecology and society?

As a citizen of a neighbouring state, this will be interesting, morbidly interesting, to watch.

I read Shashi Tharoor's book "An Era of Darkness" regarding the parliamentary democracy in India. Here, he challenged that the British system of parliamentary democracy currently utilized was never suited for Indian society. It focused more on staying in power rather than governance. He further adds that it has distorted the voting preferences of an electorate that knows which individuals it wants but not which policies to implement. This has resulted in parties that have shifting alliances of individual interests rather than mobilizing a consistent set of ideas in a collective manner. This is the reason why he always advocated for a presidential system. He concludes that the British never had any intention to impart democracy in India. And secondly, the Indians chose the parliamentary system themselves despite suggestions to implement a presidential system by a former British PM Clement Attlee at the time. This current system is responsible for many of the political ills in India, he claims.

I read this right in the run-up of August 5th and cannot help thinking just how eerily familiar the problems we are facing are considering we use the same system. Would a presidential system help mitigate any future autocracy better (if not completely) than a parliamentary one?

 

[BananaRepublic]

I read Shashi Tharoor's book "An Era of Darkness" regarding the parliamentary democracy in India. Here, he challenged that the British system of parliamentary democracy currently utilized was never suited for Indian society. It focused less on staying in power rather than governance. He further adds that it has distorted the voting preferences of an electorate that knows which individuals it wants but not which policies to implement. This has resulted in parties that have shifting alliances of individual interests rather than mobilizing a consistent set of ideas in a collective manner. This is the reason why he always advocated for a presidential system. He concludes that the British never had any intention to impart democracy in India. And secondly, the Indians chose the parliamentary system themselves despite suggestions to implement a presidential system by a former British PM Clement Attlee at the time. This current system is responsible for many of the political ills in India, he claims.

I read this right in the run-up of August 5th and cannot help thinking just how eerily familiar the problems we are facing are considering we use the same system. Would a presidential system help mitigate any future autocracy better (if not completely) than a parliamentary one?

Parliamentary system is less likely to produce an autocrat. Even in India - Modi is having to work with a coalition. He has no direct legal mandate as people vote for MPs.

Presidential system only works with term limits and 50% vote threshold. This makes it less likely for an autocrat to get elected and entrenched.

U.K. and US are the best example of both. Both countries have gone 100s of years without autocracy and dictatorships.

Bangladesh needs a presidential system with term limits and 50% vote threshold.

@UKBengali