Why Government Trying to Retain Old Structures?

The July Uprising of 2024 was not merely an incident of regime change, it represented the popular aspiration in Bangladesh for realigning the relationships between the state and the people, where the citizens would become the state’s owners, those in power would remain accountable to them, the laws would protect citizens, and security forces cum public institutions would uphold fundamental rights. The people did not come to the streets only to change a government; they sought to change the very philosophy of the state. They wanted a discrimination-free country where power would emanate from the people and the authorities would be subservient to people’s will. The uprising sought to restore the legitimacy of state-power, the dignity of citizens, and their ownership of the state. This was the moral justification for the July Uprising.
Therefore, the biggest test of the post-July state is whether the country advances towards a new state-philosophy by leaving behind the previous power-culture? Whether the state stands on a new plinth of people’s sovereignty by ensuring citizens’ participation and governmental accountability through reform of power-structure and fundamental transformation of power-centres? Sadly, some recent decisions and legislative actions have clouded the prospects for such reform. 
The fundamental issue here is the implementation of the July Charter and verdict of the referendum. Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) pledged to implement the July Charter, but has now set in motion a parliamentary mechanism for Constitutional amendments. The question remains: where is the political guarantee for adopting changes sought by people through the referendum? One should remember that a referendum is not the electoral pledge of any political party; rather it is the sovereign expression of people’s will. Therefore, no political party or government has the right to selectively choose or discard the verdict of referendum.  
Experts are also unanimous in their opinion that there is no alternative to the independence of institutions like judiciary, human rights commission and anti-corruption commission for curbing the totalitarian grip of executive branch in a democratic dispensation. These institutions have remained under executive control since independence both structurally and functionally, and is considered the main reason for repeated rise of autocracy in the country, the worst example being the ousted AL-regime. 
Naturally, the masses have been aspiring for institutional reforms following the 2024 mass-upsurge. The interim government led by Professor Yunus promulgated some ordinances towards that end. These included ordinances for establishing a separate secretariat for the judiciary under the Supreme Court and a transparent mechanism for appointing top court judges; strengthening the investigative powers of Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC); prevention of crimes like enforced disappearances; and bolstering the powers of National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). 
As the first elected government following the July-uprising and the inheritor of July-spirit, it was the responsibility of the BNP government to convert the above ordinances into law through acts of Parliament. But instead of advancing on a path consistent with people’s aspirations, BNP has shunned these apparently to maintain old autocratic structures. By not constituting the Council for Constitutional Reform, a grave uncertainty has been created regarding meaningful changes in the constitution. Some BNP functionaries even appear shy about using the term ‘reform’, and instead prefer expressions like ‘amendment’, which is indicative of their anti-reform mindset. 
Among 133 ordinances promulgated by the interim government, 98 were converted into acts of parliament without any change, 15 were passed in amended form, but 20 were completely shelved. The latter category included five ordinances related to the judiciary, enforced disappearance, the ACC, and NHRC. The repeal of these ordinances clearly indicated an intention to maintain an iron-grip over these, rather than heed to the aspirations of common people as reflected by the referendum. 
The interim government promulgated the Enforced Disappearance Prevention and Redress Ordinance, 2025 in line with the provisions of related international convention. Although the election manifesto of BNP included a pledge to take legal measures in accordance with the international convention for combating enforced disappearances, it deviated from that promise by repealing the ordinance. It has now omitted detention on ground of national security from the definitions of enforced disappearance, and inserted the provision of prior permission from government for investigating security agency members. It should be noted that the previous ordinance did not bar detentions on the ground of national security, but stipulated that such detentions could not be kept secret. The changes in law undoubtedly make it inconsistent with the international convention. 
The interim government incorporated some fundamental changes while promulgating the NHRC Ordinance for making it more effective and independent. The commission was empowered to undertake enquiries against government organisations and law enforcement agencies for violating human rights, including allegations of enforced disappearance. The grounds cited by BNP for repealing this ordinance included lack of a supervisory authority for the commission, and the need for official approval before investigating security agency personnel. But if the commission remains under any ministry or division of the government, then independence of the commission cannot be ensured. Besides, the very purpose of the commission is to investigate transgressions committed by the executive branch. Therefore, the requirement of seeking approval nullifies the independent character of the commission. The government apparently seeks a subordinate NHRC, as was the case during the fascist era. 
The Anti-Corruption Commission (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025 promulgated by the interim government incorporated a provision for a search committee that would appoint the commissioners; and the committee was supposed to have seven members including three nominated by the government. The BNP apparently repealed this ordinance as this stipulation would have curtailed its authority in appointing commissioners. The move contradicts the pledge made by BNP in its election manifesto, which sought to amend the law related to ACC in order to ensure its transparency and accountability through systemic reforms. The path BNP is now treading would curb the independence of ACC instead of making it more autonomous.  
BNP has similarly not opted for passing the ordinances related to separation of judiciary and appointment of Supreme Court judges, although it pledged to do so in its election manifesto. As a result, ordinances related to appointment of judges in the Supreme Court and the establishment of an independent secretariat under the apex court were repealed. The Appointment of Supreme Court Judges Ordinance, 2025 promulgated by the interim government in line with Article 95 (2-C) of the Constitution provided for a Supreme Judicial Appointment Council headed by the chief justice for recommending appointment of judges. Similarly, the Supreme Court Secretariat Ordinance, 2025 was repealed although the election manifesto of BNP unambiguously pledged to hand over control of the lower judiciary to the Supreme Court and strengthen the independent secretariat for the purpose. 
All these indicate a strong tilt of the BNP-government towards retaining old structures in various branches of the state. But it amounts to a clear betrayal with the spirit of 2024-uprising and the pledge of putting Bangladesh before everything else. 

The writer is a retired Additional Secretary and former Editor of Bangladesh Quarterly. He can be reached at [email protected]