People of the country had hoped that the new parliament—formed at a huge political cost—would function effectively. There was an expectation that both the ruling and opposition parties would act rationally, follow the rules, engage in meaningful discussions, and debate issues of public interest.
Many hoped disputes would be resolved within parliament, ending the old political culture of confrontation and destruction on the streets. That hope now appears to be fading.
Sending an ominous signal, the main opposition party in parliament, Jamaat-e-Islami, and its partner National Citizen Party (NCP) have decided not to listen to the inaugural address of President Mohammad Shahbuddin, effectively boycotting the ceremony.
If carried out, it would set a troubling precedent on the very first day of the new parliament’s session.
According to the constitution, the president addresses the opening session of a newly elected parliament. Members of parliament are expected to attend and listen, as a matter of constitutional protocol and respect for the office.
In Bangladesh, the president holds little executive authority beyond a few ceremonial duties. Addressing the inaugural session of parliament is one of them.
Although President Shahbuddin was appointed during the tenure of the now-ousted Awami League government, the office itself is constitutional, not political, and should be treated as such.
The stance taken by Jamaat and NCP even before parliament formally begins its work echoes the behaviour of previous oppositions that often created uproar on trivial grounds and boycotted sessions, disregarding parliamentary rules, electoral commitments, and accountability to voters.
Their position suggests that they may prioritise political posturing over parliamentary procedure, undermining the legislature as the central forum for debate and decision-making.
Instead of raising and debating issues inside parliament, the opposition appears inclined to settle disputes on the streets—an approach that has plagued Bangladesh’s politics for nearly four decades.
If parliament is to function effectively, all parties must commit to respecting the rules of business, working together, and resolving disagreements through discussion and debate. They must resist the temptation to protest every decision they dislike. Street agitation has rarely produced lasting solutions in the past.
Yet since the restoration of parliamentary democracy in 1991, political parties and their leaders have repeatedly failed to uphold that commitment. Relations between ruling parties and oppositions have often been acrimonious, marked by confrontation that pushed the country into cycles of political volatility, conflict, and destruction.
The ruling party BNP now carries a special responsibility. It must ensure space for the opposition, listen to dissenting voices, and encourage constructive debate.
Since independence, the people of Bangladesh have too often been betrayed by power-hungry politicians. Leaders promised democracy, welfare, and protection of citizens’ rights. But both ruling parties and oppositions have frequently failed to deliver—especially since the fall of military rule in 1990 and the restoration of democracy the following year.
Whether elected with public mandates or seizing power through other means, many rulers professed deep commitment to the nation and its people. In reality, those promises often proved hollow. The real objective too often appeared to be capturing power and enjoying its benefits.
While the two major parties—BNP and the Awami League—sought to court smaller parties for alliances, those smaller parties likewise tried to secure their own political interests. In this relentless struggle, the party in power fought to stay in office while the opposition sought to bring it down.
In this bitter contest for power, the interests of the country and its citizens were frequently sidelined. Ultimately, it is the people who have paid the price for politicians’ hunger for power.
