Silencing dissent to counter fascism?

In its bid to make the July Charter binding upon political parties, Jamaat-e-Islami has proposed that all parties pledge absolute unquestioning allegiance to it as a condition for eligibility in the national election. Not only will failure to abide by the charter result in disqualification in the election, but challenging the charter will be considered seditious. This came to light during Sunday's (September 14) meeting of the consensus commission.

The party's spokesperson told the press after the meeting that anyone opposing the charter would be "siding with fascism", hence their proposal for a provision constitutional order to prohibit any criticism of the charter.

This is merely another move to place the July Charter above the constitution. The National Citizen Party routinely calls for a constituent assembly because it rejects the constitution as "Mujibist", something they have never explained clearly. The young leaders of the July uprising have repeatedly said the prevailing constitution will not suffice. That is a perfectly legitimate position. Whether one agrees to such a proposal is another discussion. But mere criticism of the constitution or rejecting it for certain weaknesses must not be deemed seditious.

Read more

Jamaat, 6 other parties to wage simultaneous movements

Even the raison d'ètre of the consensus commission is to thresh out proposals to improve the constitution. The underlying premise of that exercise is a critique of the constitution. The parties attending the commission's meetings, including Jamaat, routinely challenge the constitution without any risk of being charged with sedition. In fact, there are many parties, including Jamaat, whose goals and declared vision for Bangladesh diverge drastically from the essence of a democratic people's republic in many ways. And yet there is no bar for them to take part in election.

There may be quarters who believe that the July Charter fails to achieve the desired reforms and should aspire for more. There may be others who believe that the July Charter is redundant and actual reforms should be within the parties that have charters that enable absolute authoritarian leadership without any accountability.

On top of that, the method suggested is a provisional constitutional order, often used by dictatorial regimes or during times when the constitution is suspended or does not exist. As the name suggests, this is a measure that is "extra constitutional" and therefore its legitimacy will hinge on political acceptance.

Either way, the very attempt to prohibit criticism or challenges is in itself another fascistic attempt. Although they claim to counter fascism, proponents of such a proposal are no less fascistic themselves.