Editorial
Nazmul Huda's expulsion
Is there any place for dissent in our political parties?
Nazmul Huda, an eminent lawyer and a long time BNP leader and two-time cabinet minister, has been expelled from his party for "breaking organisational discipline" and doing things "against the interest of the party". In our view the expulsion speaks far more of the BNP as a party and its constitution than it does about Nazmul Huda who, either as a politician or as an individual, is not the focus of our comment. What interests us is the core question whether or not there is any place for dissenting views within the BNP, or for that matter any of our political parties.
Let us examine the process that was followed in expelling Huda. No 'show cause' notice was served nor was he given any opportunity to explain his action that a most rudimentary practice of democracy demands. BNP constitution bestows total power on the chairperson without any check and balance making for a most undemocratic set up, including the power to expel without any 'show cause' notice. This brings out the bigger question should one person enjoy such powers? How can a party that proclaims to stand for democracy have a party constitution that is fundamentally so undemocratic? May be time has come for the BNP rank and file to raise this question. The only problem is that raising such a question may lead to expulsion.
This brings us to the principal reason for our comment, what is the place of dissent within our political parties, especially the two big ones. There are those who will say that organisational discipline requires that all leaders and workers put a unified face forward on any decision taken. Such discipline can only be demanded if the decision is taken in a democratic manner in the first place. What if a decision is taken purely arbitrarily? Then also nobody can differ? What constitutes breach of party discipline and who decides? Is it the personal likes and dislikes of the just one person? We know it is, but we question, whether it should be.
How is a party to decide on policies and actions if there is no scope for open discussion where different and differing points of view can be aired? In the specific case of Huda, he is guilty of saying that BNP lawyers erred by not asking for a "stay order" from the Supreme Court. Then he is accused of saying that the hartal call eroded some public sympathy which BNP gained when Khaleda Zia was forced out of her house. What is so subversive about these views especially when it is shared by thousands of BNP supporters and millions of ordinary people of the country?
The truth is there is no place for dissenting views within our political parties. This single fact is responsible for the autocratic nature of our leaders and the development of the type of sycophancy that has become the hall mark of our political parties. We think our political parties, especially AL and BNP, are big enough, strong enough and with sufficient ideological moorings to permit divergent views to operate within them. They must democratise party culture for the sake of greater democracy. Unless they do so these parties will not become modern political parties and will not be able to attract young, educated and energetic workers and leaders who can take our politics to greater heights and our country to higher level of prosperity.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. 
Related News
An alarming report on children’s exposure to climate risks
4 hour(s) ago
Editorial
Why is safe water inaccessible for millions despite rising spending?
19 June 2026, 08:00 AM
Editorial
BB must confront bad loans’ true scale
18 June 2026, 18:38 PM
Editorial
Dolphin deaths must be investigated
18 June 2026, 08:00 AM
Editorial
Weak policing fuelling rise in crimes
17 June 2026, 18:18 PM
Editorial
Comments