FROM PAGE 12

Instead of improving accountability, the think tank warned, an upper house might deepen political deadlock, intensify power struggles and further centralise authority.

It stressed that “without structural and cultural change, institutional reforms alone cannot guarantee accountability”.

To make the current system of parliament functional, CPD proposed appointing opposition MPs as chairs of parliamentary standing committees and ensuring transparency in political funding.

It recommended increasing local government’s financial autonomy, expanding women’s political participation, and reforming anti-defection laws.

It said the ruling party should have the powers to make key executive and constitutional appointments, but these appointments should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

CPD also proposed establishing an independent legislative commission, modelled after the Venice Commission of the European Union, to review draft laws and evaluate enacted legislation. It suggested naming the body the Commission on Democracy, Legislation, Executive, and Parliamentary Affairs.

During the presentation, Moazzem urged the consensus commission to focus on reforms related to the judiciary, local government, electoral system, and political parties for the final list of reforms.

He said reforms must start with the electoral system.

“Ensuring free, fair and transparent polls through an empowered Election Commission is the starting point,” he said, adding that parliamentary boycotts and lack of legitimacy stem from “rigged elections”.

Political leaders present at the dialogue were sharply divided over the upper house concept.

BNP Organising Secretary Shama Obaid backed bicameralism, calling for “political change and stronger parliamentary accountability”.

She said an upper house could make parliament “more transparent, inclusive and balanced”, with representatives from civil society, academia, journalism and youth, but clarified that BNP does not support proportional representation.

In contrast, Akhter Hossen, member secretary of the National Citizen Party supported both bicameral parliament and PR in the upper house.

He said the country faces a political crisis because the majority party in parliament can change the constitution without a broader consensus.

“The upper house is a way to create a constitutional check and balance,” he said. “If representatives are not chosen proportionally, then the purpose of the upper house will be lost,” he added.

He argued that PR would give a voice to even small parties with 1 percent of votes.

Ruhin Hossain Prince, former general secretary of Communist Party of Bangladesh, opposed both ideas.

“It would simply create another 100 zamindars -- powerful local figures dominating their constituencies without delivering governance benefits,” he said.

He warned that PR would “worsen political concentration rather than strengthen democracy”.

He also questioned how the consensus commission can say an agreement on an idea has been reached when all parties did not actually agree to it.

Badiul Alam Majumdar, a member of the consensus commission, replied that full agreement on the upper house was not essential.

“Consensus does not mean everyone must agree,” he said. “It means agreeing on key points through dialogue among major parties and then seeking public approval through a referendum.”

Dhaka University’s Prof Asif M Shahan criticised CPD’s study, saying it had “limited methodology” and ignored political theory. He said an upper house could “prevent power concentration in a dominant-party system”.

EU Ambassador Michael Miller said the European Union would continue supporting Bangladesh ahead of the next election, including in voter education and domestic observation.

Other speakers included Abul Hasan Rubel of Ganosamhati Andolon and Prof Abdul Alim of the Election Commission Reform Commission.