In the contemporary political landscape of Bangladesh, the intersection between law and politics is ever-growing. The role of the legal profession in this dynamic, particularly that of the Bangladesh Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), is one of the most critical yet controversial aspects of the country’s judicial system. The SCBA is a body that represents lawyers and legal practitioners within the highest courts of Bangladesh. However, there is an ongoing debate about whether the SCBA should remain politically neutral or whether it should involve itself in the country’s political activities. This article explores why it may be in the best interest of the legal profession and the country’s judicial system for the Bangladesh Supreme Court Bar Association to remain outside the political arena.
The judiciary’s role is to interpret the law and ensure that justice is administered fairly, without interference from political entities.
When the SCBA becomes involved in political activities, it can undermine this independence. Politicization of the bar association can result in judges being swayed by political pressures, potentially affecting their impartiality in decision-making. This creates a perception that the judiciary is aligned with specific political ideologies or parties, which can erode public trust in the fairness of the legal system.
For example, in cases where political figures or entities are involved in litigation, the participation of politically active lawyers can create the impression that the judgment will be influenced by political affiliation rather than the law. The judiciary, especially in a democracy like Bangladesh, must be seen as a neutral body capable of upholding the law without bias or external influence.
The practice of law in Bangladesh requires lawyers to adhere to a strict ethical code and maintain high professional standards. Political engagement by the SCBA can blur the lines between legal advocacy and partisan activity. Lawyers, who should be champions of justice, risk becoming political agents if they align themselves too closely with political agendas.
This political involvement can damage the integrity of the legal profession. A lawyer’s role is to provide their client with legal representation and advocacy, not to serve as a political tool for a specific party or ideology. Politicization can also lead to a rise in politically motivated cases, where legal disputes are clouded by partisan interests rather than legal merit. The courts may become battlegrounds for political showdowns rather than forums for justice and fairness.
A core principle in any democracy is the trust of the people in their institutions. The Bangladesh Supreme Court is one of the pillars of the state, and public trust in its decisions is crucial for the functioning of the country’s justice system. However, when the SCBA becomes entangled in political struggles, it creates a situation where the public may view the legal profession with skepticism.
In Bangladesh, where political affiliations often shape public opinion, any involvement of the SCBA in political activities can lead to the perception that the legal system is biased or serving a particular political agenda. This undermines the public confidence in the courts, which can ultimately affect the effectiveness of the legal system.
For instance, when the SCBA supports specific political leaders or parties, litigants from opposing political groups may feel that they will not receive a fair hearing in court, leading to disillusionment with the entire judicial process.
Bangladesh is a politically polarized country, and the presence of the SCBA in political activity can contribute to further division within the legal community. Political ideologies naturally create factions, and when the SCBA becomes a platform for political engagement, it risks dividing lawyers into opposing camps.
This division can detract from the primary goal of the legal profession: to serve the interests of justice. Instead of working collaboratively for the betterment of the legal system, lawyers may find themselves at odds, driven more by political allegiance than a shared commitment to justice. Such a divisive environment not only harms the legal profession but also negatively impacts the clients and the overall functioning of the judiciary.
Furthermore, these divisions often spill over into the courts themselves, where politically motivated lawyers may challenge decisions, disrupt proceedings, or attempt to influence outcomes based on their political interests rather than legal principles.
When the SCBA becomes involved in politics, there is a risk that political parties may try to exert influence over legal reforms. Law reforms should be based on the principles of justice and fairness, not the desires of political parties. However, when the SCBA becomes politically aligned, the possibility arises that it may support or oppose reforms based on political preferences rather than the greater good of society.
For instance, reforms that aim to strengthen the independence of the judiciary or ensure better access to justice might be blocked or supported based on political expediency rather than the merits of the reforms. Judicial reforms, in particular, are at risk when the bar association gets caught up in political struggles, as changes to the legal system may become tools for political manipulation rather than genuine improvements to the administration of justice.
In a democracy, lawyers play a crucial role in safeguarding civil liberties and ensuring that the rule of law is respected. When the SCBA is free from political influence, it can better focus on its core responsibilities—advocating for justice, protecting individual rights, and contributing to the overall development of the legal system. Political involvement, on the other hand, may distract lawyers from these essential duties, as they become embroiled in political power struggles rather than serving the interests of their clients.
The role of lawyers should remain that of a guardian of justice, not a political player. The independence of the legal profession is paramount to maintaining a fair and effective judicial system.
Globally, the trend toward political neutrality in legal bodies has proven to be beneficial for the development of strong, independent judiciaries. For instance, in countries like the United States and United Kingdom, legal bodies such as the Bar Associations maintain political neutrality. While individual lawyers may have political affiliations, the Bar as a collective entity remains non-political to ensure that justice is served impartially. This setup has been instrumental in ensuring that the judiciary operates without external pressure or political interference.
Bangladesh, as a democracy, can draw lessons from these international examples, ensuring that the SCBA remains politically neutral and focused on its core mission: promoting justice and the rule of law.
The Bangladesh Supreme Court Bar Association should consider stepping back from active involvement in politics to preserve the sanctity and independence of the legal profession. The focus of the SCBA should be on its fundamental role in ensuring the delivery of justice, safeguarding human rights, and upholding the integrity of the judicial system. Politicizing the bar association risks undermining the public trust in the judiciary, compromising professional ethics, and creating divisions within the legal community.
By remaining neutral, the SCBA can ensure that it remains a strong and independent body that serves the best interests of the people, maintains the rule of law, and fosters the effective functioning of Bangladesh’s judicial system. Only then can the legal profession in Bangladesh continue to earn the respect and trust of the public while remaining true to its noble calling: the administration of justice.
