Should Religious groups be allowed to participate in Politics/Election?

[BANFAN]

Originally Posted by HereWeGo
Our founding fathers formed this country in the principal of secularism and equal rights. Our laws should be equal for all citizens of Bangladesh and it is our job to protect those rights.

I want to re-emphasize the words of Barrister Harun ur Rashid
"When political parties in their manifestoes want to change the structure, system of government, judiciary and laws of a state in accordance with the principles and beliefs of a particular religion among multi-religious citizens, people of other faiths in such a state perceive gross discrimination on the basis of religion. Such discrimination is arguably untenable under the Bangladesh Constitution."

A party's agenda isn't a law yet. And if the people vote them that should mean that people approve that. A democracy shall be by the people, for the people and of the people...woy get glued to what the founding father wanted for that matter. And even we aren't clear what the founding father wanted after he declared BAKSHAL...

Secondly, if a party in power has to make such major changes in the constitution, that has to go through a referendum. And the people will accept or reject the idea. So being a democracy, I don't find that we have any scope of banning an ideology on anticipation of a future violation or amendment!!

I personally, don't like politics basing on religion, but I think taking un democratic actions against them will make the problem more complex and harm our democracy further. Let the people decide.

We all know that, it's an Awami politics of hatred and there is hardly anything good which can come out from such politics of hate. If Zamat gets a ban for being Islamist, then even the communist parity should be banned for having a state of no religion, while constitution only guarantees people of all religion...and not without it. Both are very thinly justifiable for a violation of constitution through lots of twist and turn of laws. Even that doesn't demand a ban of the party. Their part constitution can be amended with a clause of "subject to approval by the parliament and referendum" for incorporating changes in the national constitution.

So, lets not act on anticipation. Let the people have their choice. Rather make it tough to change constitution and involve people before any whole sale change of the constitution. Even I'm sacred of Awami or BNP or JP changing constitution so easily with mere 2/3 party majority, without the involvement or approval of the people.

I have problem, with the floor crossing ban in the parliament. If lawmakers can't vote against the party on any issue then it's no democracy and why we need so many lawmakers? One party representative should be enough!!

There are many more important things to do to strengthen the democracy, than running after Jamat... I'm tired of Awami politics of hate now... give it a break please.

[Naimul_Hd]

Originally Posted by BANFAN
There are many more important things to do to strengthen the democracy, than running after Jamat... I'm tired of Awami politics of hate now... give it a break please.

Awami hate Jamat & Shibir for a reason, and I personally hate them too, i hope you know the reason very well. We bangalis are too kind and too hospitable and the founding father was no exception. He should have prosecuted those Jamat & Shibir who conspired against our freedom. If he had done that, we would not have such problem now and those people would not have such power now. The blame is on us, not them. We let them free, and we let them do whatever they want.

And i am tired of Awami politics too. They only love to make an issue out of it for their own benefit. I hate that too.

[HereWeGo]

Originally Posted by BANFAN
A party's agenda isn't a law yet. And if the people vote them that should mean that people approve that. A democracy shall be by the people, for the people and of the people...woy get glued to what the founding father wanted for that matter. And even we aren't clear what the founding father wanted after he declared BAKSHAL...

Secondly, if a party in power has to make such major changes in the constitution, that has to go through a referendum. And the people will accept or reject the idea. So being a democracy, I don't find that we have any scope of banning an ideology on anticipation of a future violation or amendment!!

I personally, don't like politics basing on religion, but I think taking un democratic actions against them will make the problem more complex and harm our democracy further. Let the people decide.

We all know that, it's an Awami politics of hatred and there is hardly anything good which can come out from such politics of hate. If Zamat gets a ban for being Islamist, then even the communist parity should be banned for having a state of no religion, while constitution only guarantees people of all religion...and not without it. Both are very thinly justifiable for a violation of constitution through lots of twist and turn of laws. Even that doesn't demand a ban of the party. Their part constitution can be amended with a clause of "subject to approval by the parliament and referendum" for incorporating changes in the national constitution.

So, lets not act on anticipation. Let the people have their choice. Rather make it tough to change constitution and involve people before any whole sale change of the constitution. Even I'm sacred of Awami or BNP or JP changing constitution so easily with mere 2/3 party majority, without the involvement or approval of the people.

I have problem, with the floor crossing ban in the parliament. If lawmakers can't vote against the party on any issue then it's no democracy and why we need so many lawmakers? One party representative should be enough!!

There are many more important things to do to strengthen the democracy, than running after Jamat... I'm tired of Awami politics of hate now... give it a break please.

You seem confused... anyways please read the posts by Navo where he clearly states what the constitution of BD allows... There is a reason parties like "Huji", "Hijbut tahrir" are banned... if we go by your principal than none should be banned ...

And just to be clear, by founding fathers, I never meant 1 person......

Personally I hate Jamat and it baffles me how the perpetrators of genocide against a nation is allowed to hang the flag of that same nation in their cars... I am disgusted by it and it is unfortunate that not everyone (including u) feels that way...

Lastly my post was not meant to single out Jamat but ALL religious parties (I am also sure God did not want people to conduct politics in his name)...

[BANFAN]

Originally Posted by Naimul_Hd
Awami hate Jamat & Shibir for a reason, and I personally hate them too, i hope you know the reason very well. We bangalis are too kind and too hospitable and the founding father was no exception. He should have prosecuted those Jamat & Shibir who conspired against our freedom. If he had done that, we would not have such problem now and those people would not have such power now. The blame is on us, not them. We let them free, and we let them do whatever they want.

And i am tired of Awami politics too. They only love to make an issue out of it for their own benefit. I hate that too.

[BANFAN]

@HWG Bhai, I have gone through our constitution and yes, I have read his post too. I think you didn't read my post careful...so you are confused. I have no confusion, Im very clear what I said.

Hate can't be the justification. I only see that as the justification from you and AL side. Politics of hate isn't justify able. Even if your reasons for hate is justified.

[HereWeGo]

@BANFAN, I don't think we can agree on the point, which is fine, lets leave it at that.

About the last line of your previous post, I think my hate is justified in this instance (has nothing to do with politics) given their act of genocide. Asking for trials of war criminals should not be equated with politics of hate...

[Navo]

Here are my two cents on the matter:

Originally Posted by BANFAN
Secondly, if a party in power has to make such major changes in the constitution, that has to go through a referendum. And the people will accept or reject the idea. So being a democracy, I don't find that we have any scope of banning an ideology on anticipation of a future violation or amendment!!

...So, lets not act on anticipation. Let the people have their choice. Rather make it tough to change constitution and involve people before any whole sale change of the constitution. Even I'm sacred of Awami or BNP or JP changing constitution so easily with mere 2/3 party majority, without the involvement or approval of the people.

The idea of a 'referendum' is something that isn't recognized in the Constitution as of now.

However, the Constitution is quite clear about which provisions are amendable and which are not. According to Article 7B, "the preamble"; "all articles of Part 1" i.e. The Characteristics of the Republic which includes Article 7B itself; "all articles of Part 2" i.e. Fundamental Principles of State Policy, subject to the provisions on declaring an emergency; "all articles on Part 3" i.e. Fundamental Rights and those articles that have been declared as part of the "basic structure" of the Constitution by the courts (such as the Supreme Court's right of judicial review) CANNOT be amended by 2/3rd majority (or changed in any manner really) Those are more than 47 articles protected out of 153 articles!

The rest of the articles, however, CAN be amended. Any further restrictions on the Parliament's powers to legislate would be quite incompatible with the idea of a sovereign parliament, wouldn't it?

Therefore, following from this, I would say that a referendum on 'major changes' is only justified, indeed reasonable, if the people feel that there needs to be a change to the fundamentals or "basic structure", as it were, to the Constitution. This would involve, possibly, the country giving itself a completely new Constitution. Who knows, that might happen some day.

We all know that, it's an Awami politics of hatred and there is hardly anything good which can come out from such politics of hate. If Zamat gets a ban for being Islamist, then even the communist parity should be banned for having a state of no religion, while constitution only guarantees people of all religion...and not without it. Both are very thinly justifiable for a violation of constitution through lots of twist and turn of laws. Even that doesn't demand a ban of the party. Their part constitution can be amended with a clause of "subject to approval by the parliament and referendum" for incorporating changes in the national constitution.

I beg to differ. There is no such thing as "having a state of no religion". Just as Article 28 states that the State shall not discriminate "against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth", Article 39(1) states "Freedom of thought and conscience is guaranteed." You cannot be persecuted/prosecuted because you don't have a religion or are a pacifist or whatever. 'Conscience', in this context, is a catch-all term that protects your right not to subscribe to any particular dogma. So, if a Communist is arrested just for being an atheist, then it is clear his fundamental rights are being breached. However, if the Communist is agitating or doing something against "public order" then he/she can be arrested on that ground - not because of his/her religion, or lack thereof.

On the same note, I think if Jamaatis are arrested, it should be based on any public order disturbances/destruction of private and state property/etc. rather than because of the religion they profess. (Freedom of assembly is a qualified right under the Constitution)

I have problem, with the floor crossing ban in the parliament. If lawmakers can't vote against the party on any issue then it's no democracy and why we need so many lawmakers? One party representative should be enough!!

Here, I completely agree with you. I find Article 70 to be abhorrent and think it should be repealed. Other countries have powerful chief whips that exercise their parliamentary powers to compel party members to vote according to a certain line but that is only done occasionally and even then, going against the party line doesn't result in as harsh a penalty as in Bangladesh, where you may lose your seat!!

[Blah]

Some of you guys are confusing "Democracy" with "Direct Democracy". To the best of my understanding, in present time there is no country where a "direct democracy" type of State Government exists. By Direct democracy I mean the idea that people has the power to vote and change laws directly through the choice of majority. No, you don't have the power to vote to change law directly, not in BD not in USA, not in any modern form of democracy that currently exists (at-least not in the state level).

What you have is a power to vote representatives who can form a majority in the parliament to change or implement specific law that the majority might want to change. So lets say (hypothetically speaking) during the civil war era 90% of US population wants no rights for the African-Americans in USA, they can't do anything about it if the elected representatives says "Hey, this is a very immoral thing to do. We can't let it happen". Or to give a more recent (hypothetical) example, if overwhelming majority of US population want to raise the tax for the super rich but the Representative of house and senate doesn't want that there is nothing the population can do about it (immediately). They can only hope to be still passionate about this issue till the next election cycle, find and elect a majority representatives who will promise to fight to change the law and hope for the best.

When you say something like, "hey let the people decide with their vote if they want religion groups to participate in politics" you are talking out of your *ss. Because in this case the people don't have the power (under the present form of constitution and the present form of government) to directly vote for a form of religious ideological party that the constitution clearly states is an illegitimate form of political party.

The only way you can change it is that you elect majority Representative next election cycle who promises to form a super-majority to amend parts of constitution that you don't like.

There are very very good reasons to not allow religious groups which has roots in religious ideology to take part in election. Its like making a ball out of pages of constitution where it talks about not discriminating based on religious belief and throw it in the garbage. One thing you can guarantee religion based political party to do is to discriminate against people who doesn't follow their specific beliefs. (case in point: look at Israeli parliament, which is filled with political parties based on religious based ideology)