Part Two of the Constitution of Bangladesh, titled “Fundamental Principles of State Policy,” outlines guiding directives for governance. These articles serve as instructions to the state on what it ought to uphold. For example, Article 10 of this constitution instructs the state to establish a socialist society, while Article 13 ensures private ownership. Although these directives are not legally enforceable by law, which means if the government is not able to comply with them, it cannot be sued, they still have a huge impact in expressing and accommodating the diverse ideological visions within Bangladesh’s political landscape.
Many people believe that constitutional directives are of little or no use since they do not legally enforce the government. However, 31 nations around the world have enacted such directives.[1] These directives have many impacts, but among them, accommodating different ideologies, especially within a society where diverse beliefs coexist, is particularly important.
Like many other countries, the constitutional birth of Bangladesh was also marked by controversies. After independence, various interest groups voiced demands for their rights to be included or strongly emphasized in the constitution. These included pro-nationalists, emerging socialist movements, ethno-minority communities, religious parties, and others. Constitutional debates and disagreements have never been fully settled in the context of Bangladesh, and it is unlikely that such disputes will ever be completely resolved. However, the directives outlined in the constitution have played an important role in allowing each of these communities to feel a sense of inclusion.
If we recall, in 1972, Manabendra Narayan Larma, the then representative of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, raised concerns about the lack of recognition for ethnic identity in the drafted constitutional framework. He demanded that the constitution acknowledge ethnic distinctiveness by including enforceable group rights and a separate legislative council for the CHT people.[2] The discussion of whether or not ethnic rights have been established in the constitution is another broader discussion; however, the directives have given the ethnic minority group negotiation power. Article 23(A) of the Constitution states that proper steps must be taken to protect and develop the unique local culture and traditions of the tribes, minor races, ethnic sects, and communities. Despite being unenforceable, this constitutional directive is uniquely important for ethnic groups. Firstly, it affirms that safeguarding their rights is a fundamental moral obligation of the state, rather than an act of goodwill. Secondly, if the government fails to uphold this duty, it can be regarded as a failure, which carries a sense of shame for the government. This ensures that the bargaining power of a particular community is preserved despite other setbacks.
On the other hand, since the pro-independence period, leftist parties have been important stakeholders in this country’s political spectrum. Regarding many aspects of the constitutional framework, they have had strong disagreements, especially the pro-Peking leftist parties like NAP Bhashani and the National Party.[3] There is no doubt that, from then until now, their demands regarding the contents to be included have not been fully fulfilled. However, many directives have given considerable space to the left-wing ideology in this country. For example, Article 10 of the Constitution identifies the state as a socialist country. In addition, several other directives such as the emancipation of peasants and workers, provision of basic necessities, rural development and agricultural revolution, and free education are mentioned in Articles 14, 15, 16, and 17, respectively. Their presence in the constitutional text serves as a form of expressive recognition. It shows how even dissenting ideological groups were given legal representation, which helped secure broader legitimacy for the constitutional order. These directives have also provided room for inclusion for other racial, religious, and political backgrounds.
The question now is, in the constitutional and political framework of Bangladesh, what unique advantages are these directives providing, particularly in light of the fact that these articles are not legally enforceable? First off, this offers the greatest number of groups, including both the majority and minority, a symbolic and moral acknowledgement. This is how people feel empowered to claim their rights as recognized by the constitution. People consequently begin to feel involved and take ownership of this. This is the reason why people frequently refer to these constitutional provisions whenever they see a government policy that may conflict with their values. This is crucial because it increases the acceptance of the constitution. If the supreme law, like the constitution, is not accepted by various groups, it can lead to a breakdown of law and order. Secondly, in a highly diverse country, it is practically impossible to satisfy every group completely within a single constitution. But, by offering even limited symbolic recognition through directive principles, the constitution can secure the consent of dissenting groups who might otherwise reject it entirely. This helps ensure political stability and strengthens the self-enforcing nature of the constitutional order.
However, cross-inclusions often create significant ideological disputes among communities. For example, Article 2(A) states that Islam is the state religion of Bangladesh, while Article 12 directs the establishment of secularism. This contradiction frequently leads to verbal disputes between pro-Islamist and pro-secularist groups. Similar examples can be found in the context of our neighboring country, India. After independence, India’s political framework was primarily divided into three main ideological groups: cultural nationalists who wanted India to be officially Hindu and Hindi to be the national language; socialists who advocated for greater government control of the economy; and followers of Gandhi’s ideas, who supported simple village life and local self-government. These ideological differences caused unrest that lasted for days. However, the constitutional directives were able to include all these diverse political groups within the constitution. Even today, representatives from both majority and minority groups in India’s parliament often refer to constitutional directives to strengthen their arguments.
Although it is impossible to expect all groups to agree on every part of a constitution, constitutional incrementalism[4] is a technique used in forming constitutional directives in both India[5] and Bangladesh. First, it uses broad and somewhat vague wording, which lets different groups interpret provisions in their own way instead of relying on overly exact definitions. Second, it includes more people’s interests by accommodating diverse ideological positions. As a result, even conflicting directives can coexist without harming any specific group. Despite ongoing debates and controversies surrounding the constitution, these directives have played a major role in keeping the different communities united. It would be unfair to call our constitution neutral. It inherently reflects certain aims, which means it carries bias. However, these directives have successfully helped various communities feel more included, given them real bargaining power to voice their concerns, and strengthened their sense of ownership of both the constitution and the country.
References:
[1] Khaitan, T. (2018). Directive principles and the expressive accommodation of ideological dissenters. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 16(2), p. 391.
[2] See Manabendra Narayan Larma’s speech in The Bangladesh Constituent Assembly Debates 1972, 2(13).
[3] Huq, A. F. (1973). Constitution-making in Bangladesh. Pacific Affairs, 46(1), 62-62.
[4] Khaitan, T. (2018). Directive principles and the expressive accommodation of ideological dissenters. International journal of constitutional law, 16(2), 412
[5] Ibid
