The new parliament has concluded its first session amid persistent tensions between the ruling party and the opposition, casting uncertainty over the implementation of what has been described as a “new political arrangement” following last year’s mass uprising.
From its opening day on 12 March to its final sitting on Thursday, the session was characterised by repeated confrontations, walkouts, and sharp disagreements over key issues, including constitutional reform, the passage of ordinances, and judicial independence.
The session began in uproar, as opposition lawmakers protested during the president’s address, setting the tone for what would become a contentious and polarised parliamentary period. Although both sides frequently spoke of unity, the proceedings revealed deep divisions that analysts say could hinder efforts to reshape the country’s political framework.
A significant factor contributing to the turbulence was the inexperience of many lawmakers. With more than 70 per cent of MPs newly elected, unfamiliarity with parliamentary procedures and a lack of coordination often led to procedural complications and disruptions.
Despite the unrest, the parliament passed an unusually high number of laws. Of the 133 ordinances issued during the interim period, 98 were approved as laws—some without changes, others in amended form. However, at least 18 ordinances lapsed after failing to secure parliamentary approval within the stipulated time.
Opposition parties have accused the government of deliberately allowing certain key ordinances to lapse—particularly those that might have curtailed executive authority.
These include measures related to the National Human Rights Commission, amendments to the Anti-Corruption Commission, enforced disappearance prevention, and provisions for referendums.
Lawmakers staged multiple walkouts in protest over these omissions.
Analysts argue that many of these lapsed ordinances were crucial to preventing a return to authoritarian governance structures.
Among the ordinances that were passed into law are reforms to the electoral system, efforts to strengthen the Anti-Corruption Commission, amendments to digital security laws, restructuring of local government institutions, banking sector reforms, labour law changes, and provisions related to judicial appointments and the establishment of a separate secretariat for the Supreme Court.
However, the issue of constitutional change proved especially divisive. The ruling party favoured structural amendments within the existing framework, while the opposition pushed for broader reforms. The disagreement led to repeated clashes and walkouts, highlighting fundamental differences over the country’s political direction.
Tensions were further heightened by competing claims over the legacy of the July mass uprising that led to the formation of the current parliament. Both sides sought to assert their role in the movement, deepening political polarisation within the chamber.
Debate also intensified over judicial independence. Two key ordinances—one concerning judicial appointments and another proposing a separate secretariat for the Supreme Court—were ultimately repealed by parliament on 9 April. This effectively restored the previous constitutional system for judicial appointments, prompting criticism from legal experts who had viewed the measures as steps towards a more independent judiciary.
Despite their differences, both the ruling party and the opposition found common ground on one issue: their stance against Awami League’s return to politics. Lawmakers from both sides highlighted allegations of past abuses, repression, and corruption during the party’s tenure, calling for unity to prevent its political resurgence.
Yet even this shared position did little to bridge the broader divide. While calls for unity were repeatedly voiced in parliament, the session ultimately ended with visible disunity, heated exchanges, and unresolved disagreements.
Professor Dilara Chowdhury, a political scientist, expressed concern that the parliament had fallen short of expectations. She noted that a legislature formed in the aftermath of a mass uprising was expected to break from past practices. Instead, she observed reluctance on the part of the ruling party to implement key reform commitments, alongside a lack of effective opposition engagement due to inexperience.
“The dream of rebuilding the state appears to be fading,” she said, adding that questions remain over how much parliamentary debate has focused on issues of public concern.
The session concluded with the adoption of a motion of thanks on the president’s address, despite continued divisions between the government and opposition.
As the parliament adjourns, a central question remains: to what extent is the promised new political arrangement being realised, and whether the aspirations born out of the mass uprising can be translated into meaningful institutional change.
