Writ Perition for the suspension of Artile-70 of our Constitution

[TopCat]

Article 70 was there from the very begining of the constitution as far as i remember. It was removed after the presidential form of government and later introduced again when we revert back to parliamentary form of government for the purpose of stability. India also followed similar BD example and introduced a law similar to that as far as i know.

I support the article as 90% of our parliamentarian does not know what they are doing neither they understand any provision of law. If it is not there they will simply just start bullying nothing else.

 

[eastwatch]

You are suggesting that Article 70 was not there in its present from in the original constitution drafted by the Sheikh Mujib government. Could you inform me which amendment to the constitution introduced the changes to Art. 70 so it took on its present undemocratic form?

Thanks, but, I really do not know when it was first introduced, was it during the time of Sk. Mujib or after the fall of Ershad. I assumed it was after his fall. Someone can correctly answer your question. However, you have to note that until the fall of Ershad, it was an all powerful Presidential system and so it was not necessary to curtail the power of MPs.

BNP always supported Presidential system. But, it changed its position and accepted AL view of introducing a Parliamentary system. So, I believe, Article 70 of the Constitution could have been revised in a way that suited the ego of both the Begums. However, I need citation from other sources.

Whatever it may be, this Article is essentially responsible for destroying the possibility of democratization of political parties as well as the country. This Article prohibits the MPs from revolting against their party leaders, and organize new political platforms on their own. This is crippling the politics in BD. So, this Article should be abrogated and be replaced with clauses that sticks to the principles of Westminster style of democracy.

 

[TopCat]

I like to add, article 70 does not automatically bar the member to vote against their own party. Its the provision of whiping where the whip will ask the members to vote according to him. So most of the time the whip does not apply his authority and the members are free to cast their votes.

 

[Md Akmal]

Thanks, but, I really do not know when it was first introduced, was it during the time of Sk. Mujib or after the fall of Ershad. I assumed it was after his fall. Someone can correctly answer your question. However, you have to note that until the fall of Ershad, it was an all powerful Presidential system and so it was not necessary to curtail the power of MPs.

BNP always supported Presidential system. But, it changed its position and accepted AL view of introducing a Parliamentary system. So, I believe, Article 70 of the Constitution could have been revised in a way that suited the ego of both the Begums. However, I need citation from other sources.

Whatever it may be, this Article is essentially responsible for destroying the possibility of democratization of political parties as well as the country. This Article prohibits the MPs from revolting against their party leaders, and organize new political platforms on their own. This is crippling the politics in BD. So, this Article should be abrogated and be replaced with clauses that sticks to the principles of Westminster style of democracy.

@ Well, while I was the student of Political Science(subsidiary) in Dhaka University back in 1977, we used to learn that even in British Parliament there is a term known as "Cabinet Dictatorship". Which means whatever Cabinet decides the other members to follow. I think, this type of Article 70 is very well there even in British Constitution (though unwritten). Ask @LeBong, I think this is also there in Indian Constitution.

@ This provision was there even in 1972 once our constitution was written down. In January, 1975 once BAKLSHAL was introduced, it was Barister (son of Manik Mia) and General Osmani who opposed for the 4th amendment and accordingly voted against it and lost their membership. I donnot know what then happened during the Presidential Form of Govt during Zia and Ershad. But in 1991 once we changed into Parliamentary Form of Government this very provision was revived once again.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

It was actually the 12th Amendment that reintroduced Article 70 and made it harsher -

Two sub-sections have been added to Art 70. Section 70(2) prevents forming any rebel group within the party. Section 70(3) provides that if any independent members join any political party he will come under the preview of anti-defection provisions.

MP's in a democracy should be able to vote freely since that is why the people put them there. Cabinet decisions cannot be questioned because it would cause chaos in government decision making and be a threat to national stability.

 

[eastwatch]

@ Well, while I was the student of Political Science(subsidiary) in Dhaka University back in 1977, we used to learn that even in British Parliament there is a term known as "Cabinet Dictatorship". Which means whatever Cabinet decides the other members to follow. I think, this type of Article 70 is very well there even in British Constitution (though unwritten). Ask @LeBong, I think this is also there in Indian Constitution.

@ This provision was there even in 1972 once our constitution was written down. In January, 1975 once BAKLSHAL was introduced, it was Barister (son of Manik Mia) and General Osmani who opposed for the 4th amendment and accordingly voted against it and lost their membership. I donnot know what then happened during the Presidential Form of Govt during Zia and Ershad. But in 1991 once we changed into Parliamentary Form of Government this very provision was revived once again.

I regret that I am unable to make you really understand the difference between a Code in the (unwritten) British and Indian Constitutions in one hand and the very Code in Bangladesh Constitution that we are discussing here. Cabinet decision is a different thing than the issues discussed and decided by votes in the Parliament. Usually, all-party Parliamentary Committees discuss and decide on an issue which is then passed in the Parliament.

Note that a party has the right to expel a MP, but there is no such provision in the Indian Constitution that the MP automatically loses his membership also in the Parliament as a result. So, this makes the difference.

Please read the last post sent by MBI Munshi and try to understand how the Article 70 has enslaved the MPs, the countrys democracy, and its democratic institutions that cannot be built because of the presence of this Article in the Constitution.

The Article 70 is the mother of almost all political problems BD is facing today. Please read and understand both the letters and spirit of the unwritten Constitution of England and the written Constitution of India.

 

[Md Akmal]

@ So, now through the discussion it is clear that this provision was there from the very begining of our constitution but was deleted once Bakshal was introduced in January 1975. So, Presidential Govt continued till again once we revert back to Parliamentary Form of Govt in 1991 through the 12th Amendment.

@ So far we had been discussing about the bad impact of this article in our sysytem. But question arises why at this critical situation once the EC has just announced its election schedule some one(Lawyer) has appealed for the suspension of this article till then this election is with held.? And as per directive of EC election is due on 29 April 2013.

@ I heard that some AL Lawyer has done it. Infact in this critical situation AL does not want to go for an Presidential Election ??????? The mighty women first want to see where the water goes ---------- People says even she is thinking to be the President herself so that she can single handly deal with the political situation. Even the country goes for a Caretaker Govt if she become the President she can be the Defence Minister and keenly manipulate the incoming General Election !!!!!!

 

[kalu_miah]

Eventually we have to move to a party less democracy, where we vote for independents only and make the political parties irrelevant by not voting for party members. Political parties are the den of crooks who makes politics into a business. In rich countries the political parties are bought and controlled by the wealthy. In smaller or poorer countries, the political parties are bought up by the highest bidder, usually a foreign power who has stake in that country.

 

[Anubis]

Eventually we have to move to a party less democracy, where we vote for independents only and make the political parties irrelevant by not voting for party members. Political parties are the den of crooks who makes politics into a business. In rich countries the political parties are bought and controlled by the wealthy. In smaller or poorer countries, the political parties are bought up by the highest bidder, usually a foreign power who has stake in that country.

Do you think Presidential democracy will work in Bangladesh??How about having a man who is the Commander in Chief and has executive authority over all??

 

[kalu_miah]

Do you think Presidential democracy will work in Bangladesh??How about having a man who is the Commander in Chief and has executive authority over all??

Presidential system may work. Specifics of a democratic system is not important, what is important is that people make choices in a democratic system, learn from their mistakes and improve their system in the next iteration.

Most head of states are commanders-in-chief, but they do not have executive authority over all. There is usually different seats of power to keep a balance, such as in the US, you have:

- executive
- legislative
- judicial

branches who share power and balance each other.

 

[asad71]

1.The real question is, who will be the next Prez? The courts will do as Hasina desires. This Prez will have to preside over some sort of interim govt and hold elections - where Hasina must win at all cost. Or she will be hanged several times for Peelkhana and all the murders, killings during her time.

2. Hasina trusts no one except herself. Sis Rehana will not be accepted by most people. Same with Sajeda Chow. Khandokar is senile. Speaker Hamid has been soft and accommodating to the Opposition.

3. That leaves only herself. Why not becoming President and declare Emergency?