Criticising Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus' July Charter, British journalist David Bergman said including the declaration's current version in the Constitution would be disgraceful.
"Surely, it would be a disgrace if such a historically partial and politicised document could ever be included in the constitution," he said in a Facebook status.
CA Yunus had unveiled the July Declaration on Tuesday, stating that it would feature in the "schedule of reformed constitution as framed by the government formed through the next general election."
Bergman said the chief adviser had etched his name in a "highly partisan and politicised version of history".
Citing that Muhammad Yunus' appointment in August 2024 as the country's interim leader was indeed popularly accepted, he said, "he [Yunus] was seen as apolitical and above the fray of party politics, without as they say 'a bone in the fight'. In signing this document, he is distinctly no longer that.
"Who knows what the future lies for Yunus after the elections, but for many his involvement in this Charter will be the nail in the coffin of his once stellar reputation."
Bergman argued that there are severe flaws in the way the Declaration represented and thereby endorsed an unnuanced and inflated account of Bangladesh's history.
"Much of the history [presented in the Declaration]… seems to just represent the views of those who hate the Awami League, not just for what the party has done whilst in government, but for what the party is to them, that is to say a political adversary," he wrote.
Bergman said it was bizarre to lay blame on the Awami League on account of its drafting of the constitution in 1972, for "its failure to materialise the people's aspirations" at the wake of the war as the Declaration claims.
"There are no doubt many reasons why the Awami League was not as successful as it should have been between 1972 to 1975, but I have never heard that the 'drafting' and 'structure' of the constitution is one of them. (I guess that this "constitutional" argument emerges from a niche political grouping now powerful in Bangladesh who want to find reasons to justify a new constitution.)," he wrote.
Moreover, he said the part of the declaration that describes the post-Mujib era between November 1975 to 1982, when Ziaur Rahman was in power is represented as simply "an uprising in the army ranks joined by common people" which laid the way "for reintroducing multi-party" democracy", is a highly pro-BNP version of that period.
He also said the 1/11 army intervention was justified as the BNP government was trying to rig the elections and a decision that appeared very popular at the time.
Furthermore in response to the declaration's view that "conspiratorial arrangement" of 1/11 brought the Awami League into power Bergman said, "whilst there may have been some rigging of the 2009 elections, the election was is generally seen as amongst the fairest elections in Bangladesh's history, and at the time Awami League was clearly the most popular party"
Moreover Bergman says that the Declaration provides a one-dimensional view of the Awami regime's 16 years in power as "the Charter gives the impression that throughout the 16 years of power the party was "fascist, undemocratic and anti-people" (para 7)".
"This is simply untrue. The reality was that the Awami League government grew increasingly undemocratic and authoritarian as its period in power progressed," he added.
He said the side omitted was the party's successes, such as economic growth, education of girls, infrastructural development, and climate change.
Furthermore, he said he recognises that the students and people participating in the movement in July/August 2024 should be given some kind of "legal protection" to stop them from being subject to politicised prosecutions in the future.
However, Bergman questioned the wording of the speech, which seemed to "give immunity to those involved in the killing of Awami Leaguers and police officers during the protests (in whatever circumstances those killings took place)"
Bergman, however, expressed his support for different aspects of what the Yunus government achieved, many of which were detailed in the speech he gave after the Declaration, particularly with regard to arbitrary detentions.
Comments