What Sort of Secularism in Bangladesh?

New Age
20 October 2010

Editorial

A poignant example of political opportunism

THE assertion of the prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, at the weekly meeting of the cabinet on Monday, that the constitution the government was reprinting on a directive from the Supreme Court would restore secularism but no political party bearing names of religions would be banned, in content and intent, provides a poignant example of political opportunism. According to a report front-paged in New Age on Tuesday, a senior minister of the Awami League-led government quoted the prime minister as saying that ‘the constitution could be amended later if necessary by parliament in keeping with the recommendations of the special parliamentary committee’ and as warning her cabinet colleagues of the ‘propaganda by some quarters’ against the incumbents that they were going to ban religion-based parties, especially those named after Islam.

That the government would try to ride on the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the Fifth Amendment for restoration of the 1972 constitution had become obvious through remarks made recently to the press by the co-chairman of the special parliamentary committee. Hence, the prime minister’s assertion does not come quite as a surprise. It does, however, betray her government’s readiness to circumvent its constitutional obligation for political convenience. Ironically, by apparently acquiescing to the authority of the Appellate Division to dictate fundamental changes in the constitution, she actually put the lie to what had appeared to be the ruling party’s position, as articulated by the AL general secretary on October 2, that ‘democracy may face uncertainty if the court is given the responsibility for amending the constitution.’ Of course, observations, even guidelines, by the apex court vis-à-vis the acts of parliament in line with the constitutional spirit are necessary. However, the apex court can in no way be regarded as an instrument of constitutional amendment. Minor constitutional changes fall within the jurisdiction of the members of parliament, as representatives of the people, while changes in the fundamental makeup of the constitution have to be done by a constituent assembly comprising members elected especially for the purpose. It seems now that the government has chosen to not go through the philosophically legitimate and politically arduous process and settle instead for a short-cut.

Moreover, secularism to be pervasive and widely accepted, its incorporation or reincorporation in the constitution as one of the fundamental principles of the state is not enough; the government needs to champion the cause in society at large through words and deeds. In other words, on the one hand, the government needs to undertake a comprehensive sensitisation campaign to raise awareness in every nook and corner of society, and, on the other, set precedents through secular policies and actions, e.g. secularising the key national institutions. Regrettably, although not quite surprisingly, the government has sought to cleverly avoid the long and difficult road.

The master stroke, so to speak, is, however, the prime minister’s assertion or assurance, whichever way one puts it, that restoration of secularism as a fundamental policy of the state would not entail any ban on religion-based party, especially those named after Islam. Why then, one might ask, the restoration of secularism as a fundamental policy of the state? Just for the sake of it? Secularism is about separation of religion and politics, about absence of religion in the worldly affairs of the state. But the government has chosen to turn the concept on its head, just to appease the religion-based parties that they hobnob with, and even pamper, especially in times of elections. The ruling quarters know only too well that they need these parties to regain or perpetuate control over state power.

Overall, the prime minister has revealed her party’s predilection for the same blend of political opportunism that many people expected it to throw away. If the government cannot live up to the arduous task of secularising the state and society, the least it can do is not try to deceive people with its pseudo-secular gestures and postures.