Is the BNP really anti-reform?

In a political climate defined more by slogans than substance, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) finds itself in an ironic predicament. Despite being the first major party in Bangladesh to propose a full-scale roadmap for national reform, it has been accused of being anti-reform, status quo-driven, or politically outdated. The reality, however, deserves careful unpacking.

In as early as 2016, BNP unveiled its "Vision 2030," a document that laid out a comprehensive reform agenda covering governance, decentralisation, electoral transparency, and economic restructuring. During the anti-authoritarian mass uprising and the subsequent transition to an interim government, BNP not only extended support to the movement but also expanded its reform agenda. These were not merely cosmetic additions; they dealt with core state functions—from electoral reforms and institutional balance to judicial independence and decentralisation of power.



And yet, criticisms have continued to swirl around BNP—criticisms that allege resistance to change, a lack of willingness to share power, or a refusal to support reforms such as a bicameral parliament or the redistribution of executive authority. BNP's position has often been interpreted as reluctance. Take, for example, the proposed reconfiguration of Article 70 of the constitution, which currently disallows MPs from voting against party lines.

BNP has voiced support for amending it, but within boundaries: maintaining party discipline during votes of no-confidence, money bills, and constitutional amendments, while allowing greater autonomy otherwise. This is not obstructionism—it is a safeguard against returning to the era of chaotic floor-crossing and "horse-trading" that plagued parliamentary politics in other countries. Similarly, BNP's reservations about allowing the proposed National Constitutional Council (NCC)—an unelected body—to make major state appointments are grounded in concerns about undermining democratic accountability.

In a parliamentary system, if key powers are shifted away from the elected prime minister and parliament, we risk hollowing out the very core of representative democracy. As constitutional scholar Vernon Bogdanor observed, "Reform is not the destination of democracy, but its servant. When it begins to undermine representation, it ceases to serve.

" BNP agreed with 20 of the 23 recommendations on judicial reform, 19 of the 20 recommendations on Anti-Corruption Commission reform, and even with a significant portion of reform proposals regarding public administration. Disagreements mostly concern the mechanics of implementation and the preservation of democratic balance. Where the proposals threatened to over-empower unelected actors or weakened the mandate of elected officials, BNP argued against them.

That BNP has been selective in accepting certain recommendations is neither new nor irrational. In fact, such behaviour aligns with democratic practice across the globe. In their influential work Why Nations Fail, Daron Acemoglu and James A Robinson emphasised that reforms succeed only when they emerge from "inclusive political institutions"—that is, reforms must be rooted in legitimacy, debate, and public support, not in theoretical perfectionism or technocratic design.

Therefore, it can be argued that BNP is not opposed to reform. What it resists is impractical idealism dressed up as reform, particularly when such ideas risk further weakening the country's fragile democratic architecture. The acting chairman of BNP, Tarique Rahman, has emphasised this point on several occasions.

In a 2023 address, he said, "We are not against reform. We are against experimentalism that jeopardises the people's mandate and institutional stability." Reform, as history shows us, is always a process—never a precondition for elections.

Some voices within the civil society have advocated for completing reforms before holding elections. While the intention may be noble, perhaps the prescription is constitutionally and politically impractical. Reforms, in a democracy, are carried out by elected governments through their electoral mandate.

As political theorist Adam Przeworski writes, "Democracy does not promise the best policies, but it guarantees the right to change them." BNP has invested considerable resources in building consensus around its 31-point roadmap—holding dialogues, consultations, and campaigns in every district, upazila, union, and ward across the country. No other political party has engaged the grassroots so comprehensively on the question of reform.

This is not just political strategy; it is democratic pedagogy. It is worth asking why, despite this sustained effort, BNP is so frequently labelled as anti-reform. The answer may lie in the uneasy political ecosystem of Bangladesh—one in which narratives are often manufactured by partisan echo chambers and amplified by select voices.

This, unfortunately, has blurred public perception and reduced complex debates to simplistic binaries: pro-reform vs anti-reform, old vs new, movement vs mainstream. But such binaries ignore a crucial reality. BNP, despite its past mistakes and the political baggage it carries, remains one of the few parties capable of translating reform into governance.

Political scientist Larry Diamond's caution is relevant here, "Democratic reforms fail not because of lack of good ideas, but because of the absence of political will and organisational strength." Bangladesh stands at a critical crossroads today. Reform is necessary, but not at the cost of elections, and certainly not if it sidelines the very concept of democratic choice.

In the end, it is not slogans or social media narratives that will rebuild our institutions—it is political courage, strategic clarity, and an unflinching commitment to the people's mandate. BNP, with all its imperfections, remains one of the few forces in Bangladesh today that is capable of doing that. H.

M. Nazmul Alam is an academic, journalist, and political analyst. He can be reached at [email protected] .

Views expressed in this article are the author's own. Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission .

In a political climate defined more by slogans than substance, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) finds itself in an ironic predicament. Despite being the first major party in Bangladesh to propose a full-scale roadmap for national reform, it has been accused of being anti-reform, status quo-driven, or politically outdated. The reality, however, deserves careful unpacking.

In as early as 2016, BNP unveiled its "Vision 2030," a document that laid out a comprehensive reform agenda covering governance, decentralisation, electoral transparency, and economic restructuring. During the anti-authoritarian mass uprising and the subsequent transition to an interim government, BNP not only extended support to the movement but also expanded its reform agenda. These were not merely cosmetic additions; they dealt with core state functions—from electoral reforms and institutional balance to judicial independence and decentralisation of power.

And yet, criticisms have continued to swirl around BNP—criticisms that allege resistance to change, a lack of willingness to share power, or a refusal to support reforms such as a bicameral parliament or the redistribution of executive authority. BNP's position has often been interpreted as reluctance. Take, for example, the proposed reconfiguration of Article 70 of the constitution, which currently disallows MPs from voting against party lines.

BNP has voiced support for amending it, but within boundaries: maintaining party discipline during votes of no-confidence, money bills, and constitutional amendments, while allowing greater autonomy otherwise. This is not obstructionism—it is a safeguard against returning to the era of chaotic floor-crossing and "horse-trading" that plagued parliamentary politics in other countries. Similarly, BNP's reservations about allowing the proposed National Constitutional Council (NCC)—an unelected body—to make major state appointments are grounded in concerns about undermining democratic accountability.

In a parliamentary system, if key powers are shifted away from the elected prime minister and parliament, we risk hollowing out the very core of representative democracy. As constitutional scholar Vernon Bogdanor observed, "Reform is not the destination of democracy, but its servant. When it begins to undermine representation, it ceases to serve.

" BNP agreed with 20 of the 23 recommendations on judicial reform, 19 of the 20 recommendations on Anti-Corruption Commission reform, and even with a significant portion of reform proposals regarding public administration. Disagreements mostly concern the mechanics of implementation and the preservation of democratic balance. Where the proposals threatened to over-empower unelected actors or weakened the mandate of elected officials, BNP argued against them.

That BNP has been selective in accepting certain recommendations is neither new nor irrational. In fact, such behaviour aligns with democratic practice across the globe. In their influential work Why Nations Fail, Daron Acemoglu and James A Robinson emphasised that reforms succeed only when they emerge from "inclusive political institutions"—that is, reforms must be rooted in legitimacy, debate, and public support, not in theoretical perfectionism or technocratic design.

Therefore, it can be argued that BNP is not opposed to reform. What it resists is impractical idealism dressed up as reform, particularly when such ideas risk further weakening the country's fragile democratic architecture. The acting chairman of BNP, Tarique Rahman, has emphasised this point on several occasions.

In a 2023 address, he said, "We are not against reform. We are against experimentalism that jeopardises the people's mandate and institutional stability." Reform, as history shows us, is always a process—never a precondition for elections.

Some voices within the civil society have advocated for completing reforms before holding elections. While the intention may be noble, perhaps the prescription is constitutionally and politically impractical. Reforms, in a democracy, are carried out by elected governments through their electoral mandate.

As political theorist Adam Przeworski writes, "Democracy does not promise the best policies, but it guarantees the right to change them." BNP has invested considerable resources in building consensus around its 31-point roadmap—holding dialogues, consultations, and campaigns in every district, upazila, union, and ward across the country. No other political party has engaged the grassroots so comprehensively on the question of reform.

This is not just political strategy; it is democratic pedagogy. It is worth asking why, despite this sustained effort, BNP is so frequently labelled as anti-reform. The answer may lie in the uneasy political ecosystem of Bangladesh—one in which narratives are often manufactured by partisan echo chambers and amplified by select voices.

This, unfortunately, has blurred public perception and reduced complex debates to simplistic binaries: pro-reform vs anti-reform, old vs new, movement vs mainstream. But such binaries ignore a crucial reality. BNP, despite its past mistakes and the political baggage it carries, remains one of the few parties capable of translating reform into governance.

Political scientist Larry Diamond's caution is relevant here, "Democratic reforms fail not because of lack of good ideas, but because of the absence of political will and organisational strength." Bangladesh stands at a critical crossroads today. Reform is necessary, but not at the cost of elections, and certainly not if it sidelines the very concept of democratic choice.

In the end, it is not slogans or social media narratives that will rebuild our institutions—it is political courage, strategic clarity, and an unflinching commitment to the people's mandate. BNP, with all its imperfections, remains one of the few forces in Bangladesh today that is capable of doing that. H.

M. Nazmul Alam is an academic, journalist, and political analyst. He can be reached at [email protected] .

Views expressed in this article are the author's own. Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission .

.