WHOEVER THAT IS: Beyond boycott: Can The New Opposition Break The Cycle?

For a parliamentary democracy to truly serve its electorate, the roles played by MPs on both sides of the aisle -- the Treasury Bench and the Opposition -- are equally vital. As the BNP and its allies prepare to occupy the Treasury in the 13th Parliament following a resounding victory, they are rightly under the spotlight. However, it is also time to discuss the prospect of a constructive role for Jamaat-e-Islami, the NCP, and their allies as the primary Opposition. This is what the nation expects of them.

Unfortunately, if the history of Bangladesh’s parliamentary democracy is any guide, we have rarely witnessed substantive debate or the rigorous scrutiny required to keep the Treasury in check. In an ideal parliamentary system, the Opposition acts as a “government-in-waiting,” ensuring accountability and transparency. Its role is to combine criticism with the articulation of alternative policy directions.

Instead, Bangladesh’s parliamentary history has been marked by a transition from limited early pluralism to a prolonged era of confrontational politics and chronic House boycotts. Worse still, recent years saw the emergence of a “loyal opposition” -- a breed of politicians who traded their critical oversight role for perks and benefits from the Treasury.

Unless Jamaat and its allies break this cycle, parliamentary democracy itself will be the biggest casualty. A decisive departure from past practices of prolonged boycotts and “pet oppositions” is essential to solidify the democratic ethos that has long been missing in Bangladesh.

A history of missed opportunities

The first parliament in 1973 saw the Awami League hold an overwhelming majority, winning 293 of 300 seats. While the opposition was nearly obliterated, the few remaining members still engaged in rigorous debate before the transition to the one-party BAKSAL system in 1975. The second parliament (1979–1982) featured a larger opposition that played a crucial role in withdrawing martial law and re-establishing multiparty norms.

The third parliament (1986–1988) was short-lived and non-inclusive, yet it was characterized by intense protests against the military rule of HM Ershad. By the fourth parliament in 1988 -- boycotted by both the Awami League and the BNP -- Ershad facilitated the formation of the “Combined Opposition Party” (COP), a puppet opposition designed to provide a façade of democracy.

High aspirations followed Ershad’s fall, yet the transition to a parliamentary system did not yield a vibrant House. The 5th Parliament (1991–1995) began with strong participation but ended in mass resignations to press for a neutral caretaker government. The brief 6th Parliament in February 1996 existed solely to pass the 13th Amendment before dissolving.

The culture of boycotts

The culture of prolonged boycotts solidified during the 7th Parliament (1996–2001). It was merely a change of the guard: Where the Awami League had previously boycotted proceedings, the BNP now frequently walked out. This trend peaked during the 8th Parliament (2001–2006), when the Awami League stayed away for nearly 60% of working days. Although the BNP participated in committee meetings during the 9th Parliament (2009–2013), it boycotted 74% of floor sessions amid escalating tensions over the abolition of the caretaker system.

As for the period leading up to the July Revolution of 2024, the less said, the better. The rise of the “loyal opposition” during this time allowed the ruling party to slide from democratic governance into authoritarianism. This arrangement suited both sides: The Treasury enjoyed unfettered compliance, while the so-called opposition received cabinet berths. In the process, the electorate was cheated and left disillusioned.

Starting from scratch

Because Bangladesh’s parliaments have lacked healthy debate for decades, an entire generation of lawmakers has come to power without exposure to proper parliamentary discourse. Such discourse is a structured and formal mechanism for negotiation and decision-making, characterized by adversarial yet regulated engagement.

Jamaat, the NCP, and other opposition lawmakers in the 13th Parliament must therefore start almost from scratch to build a culture of substantive floor debate. If they can sow these seeds today, future leaders will be able to reap the fruits of a functional democracy. Their legacy now hinges on a critical choice: Will they revive the culture of boycotts, or will they hold the Treasury accountable for the benefit of the people?

An indispensable pillar

In a democracy, the opposition is not a rival to be crushed but an indispensable pillar of governance. Its primary responsibility is to hold the government accountable for its expenditures and actions. Regardless of their seat count, Jamaat and the NCP must not consider themselves “weak.” They hold a formidable public mandate, having secured more than a quarter of parliamentary seats, and nearly a third of the popular vote.

What we have witnessed even before the new parliament has convened is not encouraging. On the pretext of BNP MPs not taking the oath of reform, the Opposition abstained from the swearing-in ceremony of the new cabinet. It is difficult to understand why boycotting should be the default method of expressing dissent in a democracy. Opposition parties must be more astute, addressing differences and divergent views on the very floor of the parliament.

They have come this far to become lawmakers and occupy the Opposition Bench -- not to walk out or boycott ceremonial state events. They have far greater responsibilities to shoulder. They must compel ministers to justify policies, expose administrative failures, and maintain a shadow cabinet with designated spokespeople for every major portfolio. Beyond criticism, they should present alternative programs, offering the electorate a clear and credible choice for the future.

A “loyal opposition” is a disgrace to democracy. Moving beyond House boycotts is the only way forward. By fully exercising their authority to scrutinize legislation and hold the line, this new Opposition can finally provide the checks and balances that Bangladesh has so desperately lacked.

Reaz Ahmad is Editor, Dhaka Tribune.

This article was originally published on Dhaka Tribune.
Views in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect CGS policy.