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

[HereWeGo]

What do you guys think. Personally I am totally against it but I will be the first one to admit the fact that I am biased against Jamat.

FBCCI president called Jamat a terrorist organisation, and to a certain degree I agree given the fact that Bangla Bhai and some other radical groups in the past had association with this party and it is well documented.

Is there a room for a religious groups in politics??

http://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2013/...st-group-fbcci

[zsayeed]

Yes - one may not not like it - but they have a right to be heard - as long as it is not riot-mongering speech. The usual 1st amendment rights apply.

But then if an ultra-religious/political faction comes into power - they should be allowed to take charge of government - instead of playing games as was in Palestine. I do not condone Hamas - but they won freely. Same thing happening with Brotherhood in Egypt - but the west must take it - it is in line with their notion of democracy.

Democracy has a price. Can't pick and choose the vox populii.

[kalpurush]

Originally Posted by zsayeed
Yes - one may not not like it - but they have a right to be heard - as long as it is not riot-mongering speech.
.

What Jamat and it's student wing is doing now...


They should be taken to court for ^^^

[zsayeed]

Originally Posted by kalpurush
What Jamat and it's student wing is doing now...


They should be taken to court for ^^^

Sure - but they still have a right to exist as a political party - unless they foster terrorist activities. So to delegalize the party - one must do so by the rule of law as well. And the outcome of the court decision should withstand the test of regimes - unless conditions imposed by that court of law is met.

[kalpurush]

Originally Posted by zsayeed
Sure - but they still have a right to exist as a political party - unless they foster terrorist activities.

Agreed.

Regardless of what political party it is, i.e., Jamat, BNP, BAL whoever does harm or act against national interests, should be prosecuted accordingly.

[mufi_02]

By the way Bishwajit got brutally chopped and murdered medieval style, in broad daylight, with the picture and full bio of the culprits in mass media next day and still BAL couldn't do anything, that tells the story of political groups in Bangladesh. If after this BAL can remain in power, then any one has the right to be a political group, be it golap ful marka peace loving zaker party or violent war criminals jamat party.

[BANFAN]

Why not...let people decide what and whom they want. Wo are you or me or the govt to decide ??

[HereWeGo]

Originally Posted by BANFAN
Why not...let people decide what and whom they want. Wo are you or me or the govt to decide ??

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."

[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.

[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.

[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)...

[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!!

[cricheart]

Police, RAB & other gun runner authorities are quite strong in Bangladesh holding lot of power since 9-11. Once its tagged as terrorist organisation, it dosnt take much time abolish such groups, that we allready witnesed (i.e. JMB, Harkatul Jihaad etc).

If sheltering & aiding war criminals aint enough for common BD ppl to discourage support over Jamat & forgetful for crimes that occur 40 years ago, better Govt dont go for such approach and let islamic religious groups be in politics. I dont think hartal, picketing, police killing etc are treated as terrorism in BD yet.

[Maysun]

The thing is, if parties like Jamaat come into power, the other religious minorities will be ignored, harassed and perhaps discriminated.

[zsayeed]

Originally Posted by maysun
The thing is, if parties like Jamaat come into power, the other religious minorities will be ignored, harassed and perhaps discriminated.

That is why it so very important to disassociate the executive and judicial branches. Even in US there is a fragile bond - as the constituency of the Supreme court is a function of what party has executive control plus the house and senate control - because only nominated candidates get into the supreme court - that is after the confirmation hearings - but the executive nominates his/her liking. How do Supreme court judges get nominated/appointed in Bangladesh?

It is so important to separate the two.

[HereWeGo]

Religion-based political parties and the Bangladesh Constitution



Barrister Harun Ur Rashid
On June 30th, the Bangladesh Parliament passed the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, and it was signed by the President on July 3rd. The Constitution now comes into effect with the assent of the president.
The Constitution of 1972 has gone through 14 amendments, the last of which was adopted in May 2004.
The 15th Amendment to the Constitution brought 55 changes, some of them reversions to the 1972 constitution, following the judgment of the apex court on the illegality of the fifth, eighth and thirteenth amendments.
The opposition party BNP boycotted not only the sessions of the Parliament when the 15th Amendment was passed but also the deliberations of the special parliamentary committee on constitutional amendments.
One of the amended ones is Article 12, which prohibited religion-based politics. The question is whether a political party's name with the words "Muslim" or "Islamic" or "Hindu" or "Christian" is prohibited under the constitution.
The answer to the query is in the negative because it is not just the name of the parties that matters.
What matters is whether a political party wants to change the structure of the constitution and laws of a state on the basis of a particular religious set of guidelines. In such circumstances, it is considered using religion for political purposes and is counter to the Constitution of Bangladesh, which is a multi-lingual, multi-ethnic and multi-religious state.
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.
In many European countries, political parties have prefixed the name of a religion, such as Germany's Christian Democratic Union and Christian Union in the Netherlands. In Pakistan, it is Muslim League, and there are parties with Hindu names in India.
Although many political parties in Europe have prefixed the word "Christian," there appears to be no intention to change the basic structure of a state's existing structural system and laws on Biblical doctrines.
The word "dharmanirekhapata" (religious pluralism) is to be distinguished from non-involvement with religion. Religious pluralism implies governmental engagement with religion for the purpose of treating all religious groups fairly, equally and equitably, while non-involvement implies governmental isolation from matters of religion.
It is argued that in the background of festering and destructive communal politics in British India, religious pluralism and Bengali-language based nationalism constituted the spirit of the Liberation War of 1971. The fact that Pakistani Muslim soldiers committed crimes against humanity against Bengali Muslims in 1971 demonstrates that commonality of religion could not hold back the Pakistani soldiers from committing such nefarious crimes.
Religious pluralism is a golden thread running through the Constitution that was adopted on November 4, 1972. The concept of freedom of religion is further stipulated in Article 41 of the Constitution, which is as follows:
"(1) Subject to law, public order and morality:
(a) every citizen has the right to profess, practice or propagate any religion;
(b) every religious community or denomination has the right to establish, maintain, and manage its religious institutions
(2) No person attending any educational institution shall be required to receive religious instruction, or to take part in or to attend any religious ceremony or worship, if that instruction, ceremony or worship relates to a religion other than this own."Article 41 is founded upon on religious pluralism. In Bangladesh, people of various faiths are deeply religious, and the most devoutly religious people are also the staunchest defenders of religious pluralism.


The writer is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.


MORE

[Navo]

Originally Posted by zsayeed
How do Supreme court judges get nominated/appointed in Bangladesh?

It is so important to separate the two.

I can answer that!

Article 95 sets out the procedure for how Judges are appointed in Bangladesh:

"95.(1) The Chief Justice shall be appointed by the President, and the other Judges shall be appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice.

(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge unless he is a citizen of Bangladesh and -

(a) has, for not less than ten years, been an advocate of the Supreme Court; or
(b) has, for not less than ten years, held judicial office in the territory of Bangladesh; or
(c) has such qualifications as may be prescribed by law for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court

And, as our Presidents come from the ruling party, there is no true separation of powers at all.

[shakibrulz]

The farther you keep religion and religious groups from politics, the better. Two should never mix. Separation of religion and state and all that.

Whether they ought to have the right is a diff. question though.

[zsayeed]

^ so the constitution is protected against religious bias- what of the other laws that are not part of the constitution. I mean there are differences between a change in the constitution (amendment) and a law.

If the other laws are protected as well - then we need worry about segregation. But we are - hence - there is a loophole.

(PS - by the same token - you cannot ban a party because of their religious makeup - ie - they are protected)

[Navo]

Originally Posted by zsayeed
^ so the constitution is protected against religious bias- what of the other laws that are not part of the constitution. I mean there are differences between a change in the constitution (amendment) and a law.

If the other laws are protected as well - then we need worry about segregation. But we are - hence - there is a loophole.

(PS - by the same token - you cannot ban a party because of their religious makeup - ie - they are protected)

The Constitution is the supreme law of Bangladesh. If any law in the country is incompatible with the Constitution then it is rendered null and void. Therefore, if there is some law that is religiously discriminatory, then that can be brought before the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh under Article 102 of the Constitution (our Judicial Review clause) through a writ petition and set aside/quashed etc.

In addition to Article 41 cited in that article by Barrister Harun-ur-Rashid, I'll refer you to some other constitutional provisions that are key:

- The Preamble: which after the 15th Amendment, retains "Bismillah-Ar-Rahman-Ar-Rahim" but also re-institutes "nationalism, socialism, democracy and secularism" as the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

- Article 2A: "The state religion of the Republic is Islam, but the State shall ensure equal status and equal right in the practice of the Hindu, Buddhist, Christian and other religions."

[HereWeGo]

Originally Posted by Navo
The Constitution is the supreme law of Bangladesh. If any law in the country is incompatible with the Constitution then it is rendered null and void. Therefore, if there is some law that is religiously discriminatory, then that can be brought before the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh under Article 102 of the Constitution (our Judicial Review clause) through a writ petition and set aside/quashed etc.

In addition to Article 41 cited in that article by Barrister Harun-ur-Rashid, I'll refer you to some other constitutional provisions that are key:

- The Preamble: which after the 15th Amendment, retains "Bismillah-Ar-Rahman-Ar-Rahim" but also re-institutes "nationalism, socialism, democracy and secularism" as the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

- Article 2A: "The state religion of the Republic is Islam, but the State shall ensure equal status and equal right in the practice of the Hindu, Buddhist, Christian and other religions."

Awesome Input, Always nice to get an input from someone who is a associated with the legal system of Bangladesh.

[Zeeshan]

Originally Posted by HereWeGo
Awesome Input, Always nice to get an input from someone who is a associated with the legal system of Bangladesh.

buro angul dekhano shovoniya noy in legal system of Bangladesh....

[Navo]

Originally Posted by Navo
The Constitution is the supreme law of Bangladesh. If any law in the country is incompatible with the Constitution then it is rendered null and void. Therefore, if there is some law that is religiously discriminatory, then that can be brought before the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh under Article 102 of the Constitution (our Judicial Review clause) through a writ petition and set aside/quashed etc.

In addition to Article 41 cited in that article by Barrister Harun-ur-Rashid, I'll refer you to some other constitutional provisions that are key:

- The Preamble: which after the 15th Amendment, retains "Bismillah-Ar-Rahman-Ar-Rahim" but also re-institutes "nationalism, socialism, democracy and secularism" as the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

- Article 2A: "The state religion of the Republic is Islam, but the State shall ensure equal status and equal right in the practice of the Hindu, Buddhist, Christian and other religions."

Sorry, I should have added this as well:

Article 12. The principle of secularism shall be realised by the elimination of -
(a) communalism in all its forms;
(b) the granting by the State of political status in favour of any religion;
(c) the abuse of religion for political purposes;
(d) any discrimination against, or persecution of, persons practising a particular religion.

Source: Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, as updated in October, 2011

(Though the 295 BDT for the Print Edition isn't a bad purchase either, considering the ease of use...)

[Jadukor]

Religion and Politics should be kept totally separate. Political parties are about how to move the country forward by setting policies. You don't need religious scholars but people with strategic vision and sound administration skills. The moment you start to use religion or god as a tool to buy votes then you are not playing fair with other political parties. People do not need to know if the political leaders are faithful to god or not, what they need to know is whether the political leader have the ability, skills and desire to govern and make the country flourish.