Demands for a new constitution and the questions they raise

If there is one key objective in the youth-led National Citizen Party (NCP) declaration, it is the demand for a new constitution. This, in turn, is expected to lay the groundwork for the envisioned second republic, as outlined by the leaders of the July uprising.

"To achieve this, we must eliminate all possibilities of restoring constitutional autocracy through the adoption of a new democratic constitution," states a translated excerpt from the party's declaration. This is no longer just the fervent rhetoric of uprising activists still energized by their success in toppling an autocratic regime. Instead, the call now comes from what is poised to become a formidable political force.

Naturally, this raises critical questions: What exactly in the current constitution enables 'constitutional autocracy'? What aspects make it so inherently undemocratic that it must be discarded entirely? The persistent demand—and now a formal declaration—suggests that the constitution is perceived as deeply flawed, fostering authoritarian elements throughout its framework. Merely amending certain sections or introducing new provisions is seemingly insufficient. The push for a completely new constitution implies that the existing one is beyond reform.

The need for constitutional changes had already been acknowledged, leading to the formation of the constitutional reform commission under Ali Riaz. The commission proposed several safeguards, including the establishment of an election-time caretaker government and a constitutional council comprising representatives from the government, opposition, judiciary, and civil service. Given that the commission included the current information adviser—regarded as the intellectual driving force behind the student movement—it was reasonable to assume that its recommendations would be adequate. However, Nahid’s declaration last evening suggests otherwise.

Several NCP leaders have repeatedly referred to Bangladesh’s constitution as a "Mujibist constitution." Yet, it remains unclear which specific words, provisions, or sections justify this characterization. What elements within the constitution enable autocratic rule? Why is a complete overhaul deemed necessary?

Thus far, the uprising leaders—now at the helm of the NCP—have yet to move beyond rhetoric and provide concrete explanations. Now is the time for them to do so.