Opposition walkout from Parliament: Why politics trumped decorum in first session

During President Mohammed Shahabuddin's address at the first session of the 13th National Parliament, a commotion broke out as the opposition staged a walkout. The incident highlights deepening tensions surrounding the legacy and political interpretations of the July Uprising. TBS spoke to political analysts and experts to understand the significance of the disruption and what it may signal for the country's political trajectory.

Mohiuddin Ahmed

Writer and Political Analyst

Nahid Islam swore adviser's oath under same President

It is good that the Speaker and Deputy Speaker were elected unanimously without contest. Often, there is a lot of commotion over this. However, there had been talk that the post of Deputy Speaker would be given to the opposition.

But from Jamaat's position, it seemed that they would take it only after implementing or endorsing the July Charter. Before that, they would not accept it. That is the impression we received.

They walked out during the president's speech, which they had already said they would do. However, we see some double standards here. Because one of those who walked out was Nahid Islam. He had taken oath as an adviser under this very president.

Therefore, it is clear that some politics has been played around this issue. Members of Jamaat also brought small placards with them. That means they had come prepared beforehand to stage such an action.

So the whole matter seemed quite ridiculous to me.

Jamaat-e-Islami mentioned their deceased leaders because they consider them important.

If Jamaat can become the opposition in parliament and be elected through the people's vote, then their leaders will have to be acknowledged. Because that is the convention. These decisions are made on party considerations, and this too has been done on party considerations.

Dr Iftekharuzzaman

Executive Director, TIB

Opposition failed to appreciate constitutional significance of Presidency

Due to the symbolic association with authoritarian kleptocracy, the President as an individual remains controversial to almost everyone, regardless of political affiliation.

However, by demonstrating a failure to appreciate the constitutional and state significance of the presidency beyond personal identity, the main opposition party's attempt to gain political advantage through such a role has itself become self-defeating and controversial.

On the other hand, regardless of how it is explained, the inclusion, according to the demand of Jamaat-e-Islami, of the names of their party leaders, who were sentenced to death for various crimes, including crimes against humanity during the Liberation War and the killing of intellectuals, in the condolence motion cannot be viewed in isolation.

There are reasonable grounds to link it with the political reality of a National Parliament formed with the unprecedented outcome in which Jamaat secured control of nearly one-quarter of the seats after receiving around 32% of the vote, something that was once considered unimaginable.

Altaf Parvez 

Political Analyst

BNP must disclose July Charter implementation plan

I believe the BNP must present a clear roadmap regarding the July Charter, as it has been passed through a referendum.

Therefore, the ruling party must inform the National Parliament how it plans to implement it.

There is no fundamental disagreement between Jamaat and the BNP on the issue. However, the BNP needs to be given more time.

At the same time, the BNP must clarify its position on the matter. Otherwise, the disagreement may grow further both in parliament and in street politics.

Sabbir Ahmed

Professor, Political Science, DU

Likelihood of such situation recurring in the future low

The core problem is political. There are political differences between the BNP and the Jamaat-led 11-party alliance regarding the July Charter and the Constitutional Reform Council.

The BNP has taken a constitutional stance regarding the President's address at the first sitting. However, at the same time, there are other political implications behind it.
Today's commotion centred on the President. The likelihood of such a situation recurring in the future is low. 

Jamaat has its own political strategy, and what the party has achieved in this election is its best result. Why would they risk undermining that achievement by creating further disruptions?