The first session of the parliament ended with the promise of a vibrant House with lively debates but also revealed weaknesses in the failure to adopt reforms.
On one hand, active participation of the opposition together with the prime minister’s call for dialogue signalled hope for a more effective and democratic parliament. On the other, procedural failures, and MPs’ reluctance to act without the prime minister exposed structural weaknesses.
Expectations are high that the 13th parliament -- elected through broadly accepted polls after years of controversy -- will break from the old pattern of boycotts, hollow debates, and acting as little more than a rubber stamp for ruling parties.
The hope is that the new parliament will emerge as a genuine forum of democratic practice grounded in constructive debate and a stronger role in holding the government accountable.
The maiden session, held from March 12 to April 30, was marked by heated exchanges on issues ranging from the Liberation War (and the main opposition Jamaat-e-Islami’s role during that time) to the July charter, reform proposals, the fuel crisis, law and order, and the economic situation. These discussions kept the House vibrant marked by occasional flare‑ups. But even the opposition’s walk-outs were instances of constructive protest.
Optimism persisted as Prime Minister Tarique Rahman acknowledged several points raised by the opposition leader and urged cooperation.
The opposition leader, in turn, committed to assist in positive government initiatives. In his concluding speech, the prime minister stressed that solutions to national problems must be found through dialogue with the opposition, and stability in parliament is essential for Bangladesh’s progress.
His remark -- that if either the ruling party or the opposition fails, then Bangladesh itself and the parliament will fail -- gave rise to hope for an effective House.
As the parliament did not ratify several key ordinances issued by the interim government, 23 (some of them key to genuine reforms) lost validity. These included provisions for judicial independence, a stronger Human Rights Commission, prevention of enforced disappearances, an empowered Anti‑Corruption Commission, and establishing a police commission.
While this drew strong criticism both within and outside the parliament for weakening institutions and betraying public expectations, cabinet members pledged that they would return with stronger bills for these reforms later.
Constitutional reform remains a flashpoint. The BNP’s reluctance to form a constitutional reform council or chart a clear reform path has deepened uncertainty around the July charter. While the government avoided convening the council as mandated by the July National Charter Implementation Order, it instead proposed a special parliamentary committee to amend the constitution. The opposition, however, demanded time to decide on joining, insisting on broader reforms.
The opposition staged four walkouts -- protesting against President Mohammed Shahabuddin’s opening address, parliament’s failure to provide a resolution on adjournment motions, and the passage of what they termed “anti‑people” bills. However, they returned to the House each time, which can only be seen as their commitment to the parliamentary process. The opposition’s proposal for a fuel committee -- accepted by the government -- was a rare example of tolerance from the treasury bench.
Still, some government decisions, such as sanctioning “MP office” at upazila parishads (described as “sitting places”), drew criticism for undermining local governance.
With 220 first-time MPs -- the leader of the House as well as the opposition leader -- the parliament was wont to witness procedural lapses, which it did aplenty.
Lawmakers were often not provided with bills in time and sometimes received them barely an hour before debate, making proper review impossible.
On several occasions cabinet members fumbled while presenting bills, opposition MPs failed to engage meaningfully, and the unusual practice of allowing debate after passage of a bill broke the rhythm of parliamentary work.
On several instances, the chief whip’s interventions in minor procedural matters -- issues that could have been easily conveyed through parliamentary staff -- irked many, said parliament officials.
On at least two occasions when the prime minister was not present, ruling party MPs were noticeably missing, including several who were scheduled to speak. The chief whip candidly admitted that treasury bench members were reluctant to speak without the audience of the prime minister, a trend that could only reinforce the advice that parties must rise above their old habits to lay a solid foundation of the parliament as an institution.
