The Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD) has strongly recommended scrapping the proposal plan to introduce an Upper House in the upcoming 13th National Parliament, warning that such a move would complicate rather than improve Bangladesh’s legislative process.
At a seminar held in Dhaka on Thursday, CPD experts argued that the current parliamentary model could be strengthened through internal reforms rather than by adding a second chamber.
The event, titled “Proposed Upper House in the National Parliament: Can it Ensure Accountability of the Majority Party?”, brought together academics, political analysts, and former officials to debate the implications of the controversial proposal.
Delivering the keynote address, CPD Research Director Dr Khondaker Golam Moazzem said that the idea of an Upper House lacks both justification and relevance within Bangladesh’s Westminster-style parliamentary system.
“There is no logical or structural need for an Upper House,” Moazzem said. “It will only create new layers of complexity without ensuring any real accountability.”
He instead recommended forming a Parliament Commission, an independent body to act as a “third eye” overseeing legislative activities and supporting the role of the Speaker, who he noted often lacks adequate authority when navigating politically sensitive decisions.
Moazzem criticised the current dominance of the ruling party in parliamentary affairs, stating that nearly 99 per cent of legislation is passed without meaningful opposition input.
“The real issue is not the structure, it’s the overwhelming dominance of the majority party,” he said. “We already have over 50 parliamentary committees. If those functioned properly, they could deliver accountability without the need for a second chamber.”
Professor Nizam Ahmed of the Chittagong University echoed Moazzem’s concerns, calling the rationale behind the Upper House “weak and unconvincing.”
“According to the proposal, the Upper House would merely review bills passed by the Lower House, without the power to amend them. How, then, would it hold the majority to account?” he asked.
He also raised concerns about the different electoral systems proposed for the two chambers, with the Lower House elected directly and the Upper House through proportional representation. “This could shift the balance of power in unpredictable ways,” he warned.
Not all voices at the seminar were entirely dismissive of the proposal. Abdul Alim, a member of the Election Commission Reform Commission, suggested that an Upper House could serve as a check on executive overreach.
“If designed well, a second chamber might reduce authoritarian tendencies and introduce a level of internal oversight within parliament,” he said. However, he cautioned that it might also create legislative deadlocks and redundancy.
Presiding over the discussion, CPD Distinguished Fellow Professor Rounaq Jahan urged policymakers to focus on reinforcing accountability mechanisms within the existing parliamentary system.
“We urgently need a formal Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament. That alone could significantly improve parliamentary integrity,” she said. “Fix what we have before introducing something entirely new”, she added.
