Bangladesh does not necessarily need a bicameral legislature to ensure checks and balances. Instead, reforms within the existing unicameral parliamentary framework can deliver stronger accountability of the majority party. As part of ongoing national reform debates, political parties and reform commissions have discussed creating an upper house as a possible mechanism for ensuring checks and balances. The Center for Policy Dialogue conducted a study to analyze whether stronger accountability can be achieved through reforms within the existing unicameral parliament. It also examined whether introducing an additional institutional layer would be necessary.
According to the recent study by the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD) titled, “Ensuring Accountability of the Majority Party in the Parliamentary System of Bangladesh,” finds that the key challenge lies not in the unicameral structure itself. The main drawbacks are- excessive concentration of power, partisan dominance, and weak institutional independence. CPD recommends strengthening parliamentary committees, restructuring the Prime Minister’s Question Time, expanding private members’ participation, and enhancing budgetary oversight. It also calls for establishing an independent commission to act as a watchdog against executive overreach.
At a National Dialogue held on 9 October 2025, organized by CPD in partnership with the European Union in Bangladesh, titled “Proposed Upper House in the National Parliament: Can it Ensure Accountability of the Majority Party?”. Several participants supported the idea of introducing a bicameral legislature as a potential mechanism to ensure accountability and institutional checks and balances. In the contrast, others argued for reforming the current parliamentary practices. However, there was broad consensus on one core issue – the urgent need to curb the concentration of unchecked power of the majority party within the parliamentary system.
Professor Rounaq Jahan, Distinguished Fellow at CPD, chaired the session and opened the discussion by expressing her heartfelt condolences for the passing of Dr Tofail Ahmed, Chair of the Local Government Reform Commission, who had been the Guest of Honour for the event.
She then reflected on her long-standing advocacy for three essential reforms: abolishing special privileges for parliamentarians, requiring the annual declaration of their assets and income, and establishing a clear Code of Conduct. ‘True change begins with self-accountability. If MPs lead by example, we can make meaningful progress in governance,’ she remarked.
‘If Bangladesh pursues an upper house, the focus should be on design rather than symbolism,’ said Mr Enrico Lorenzon, Team Leader for Inclusive Governance at the Delegation of the European Union to Bangladesh. ‘A well-designed upper house can add deliberation and diversity; a poorly designed one could delay progress.’ He added, ‘Ultimately, Bangladesh must choose the institutional path that fits its constitutional tradition and democratic ambitions.’
Dr Khondaker Golam Moazzem, Research Director at CPD, stressed the need to enhance the capacity of parliamentary committees. He stated, ‘Empowering committees and ensuring they have the necessary resources and independence will allow them to scrutinise government activities effectively and provide the oversight required to hold the majority party accountable’. He also suggested that procedural barriers to private members’ participation should be reduced to allow a broader representation in legislative decision-making.
Professor Nizam Ahmed, from the University of Chittagong, provided a critical analysis of the proposal for bicameralism. ‘While the case for bicameralism may appear appealing, it risks leading to political deadlock and centralisation of power, making the system more prone to gridlock,’ he cautioned. He further argued, ‘Rather than creating a second chamber, we should focus on improving the existing system, particularly through better scrutiny by committees, ensuring that transparency is at the heart of legislative processes’.
‘The question of an upper house and its role in enhancing accountability is key,’ said H.E. Mr. Michael Miller, Ambassador, Head of Delegation, Delegation of the European Union to Bangladesh. ‘While the decision is for Bangladesh to make, our experience shows that successful democracies rely on scrutiny, budget oversight, and questioning the executive. An upper house can play a vital role in ensuring these functions are performed effectively.’
Ms Shama Obaid Islam, Organising Secretary, Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), , shared her support for the idea of an upper house, stating: ‘An upper house can help make parliament more accountable and inclusive, ensuring better checks and balances in decision-making. It would offer a platform for diverse voices, including civil society and youth, to participate. However, its success depends on how representatives are selected, and transparency in the process is key.’
‘An upper house can prevent unilateral constitutional changes by providing checks and balances. It would ensure better representation and policy debates, reducing reliance on protests and strikes.’ said Mr Akhtar Hossain, Member Secretary, National Citizen Party (NCP). ‘Proportional representation in the upper house would create a more balanced approach to governance and protect the public’s voice.’
Dr Badiul Alam Majumdar, Member, National Consensus Commission,made a strong case in favour of an upper house, stating, ‘An upper house can play a crucial role in ensuring accountability and creating a system of checks and balances. It would help prevent the tyranny of the majority, a situation where the ruling party abuses its power. A second chamber could moderate laws passed by the lower house, especially in cases where emotional or retaliatory decisions are made.
Mr Ruhin Hossain (Prince), Member, Central Committee, Communist Party of Bangladesh, opposed the proposed upper house, stating, ‘We believe the upper house is unnecessary for Bangladesh at this time. It has never been a part of our discussions, even during past reforms. Instead of focusing on adding another chamber, we should strengthen our existing parliament and decentralise local governance to ensure greater transparency and accountability’.
‘An upper house could provide time for reflection and review, preventing hasty decisions like the Fourth Amendment,’ said Mr Abul Hassan Rubel, Executive Coordinator, Gonosamhati Andolon. ‘Politics is not just about power; it’s about addressing people’s opinions and gaining support. An upper house would help facilitate this and ensure better accountability, strengthening our democracy.’
Professor Abdul Alim, Member, Election Commission Reform Commission, explained, ‘There are three reasons why I would say “no” to a bicameral parliament. First, unnecessary delays can occur in lawmaking. If both houses don’t function properly, a law might be delayed. After a law is proposed, if there is a lack of coordination between the houses, it can cause significant delays and even a political deadlock.’
‘An upper house is needed to balance political power and influence political behaviour. It can check the dominant party’s ambitions and ensure accountability, as a two-thirds majority would be required to amend the constitution, preventing unchecked power,’ argued Dr Asif M. Shahan, Professor, Department of Development Studies, University of Dhaka.
High-level politicians, academics, experts, business leaders, civil society members, development partners and journalists to took part in the discussion and shared their valuable insights.
