---

A year ago, blood was shed on the streets of our country. Thousands of people, especially the youth, joined a mass movement with anger in their hearts and hope for change. They demanded more than a change of leadership; they called for reform in the very process of governance. That movement, which we now remember as the "July Uprising," revealed two powerful truths. One, it demonstrated the political awareness and courage of our youth. Two, it exposed a fundamental weakness in our democracy: that ordinary citizens, particularly young people, have no institutional mechanism to communicate directly with the state.

One cannot expect civic participation in governance under a fascist regime. However, even if Bangladesh manages to return to democracy through the ongoing efforts of the interim government, reform commissions, and the activities of all political parties, the means of exercising a citizen's fundamental rights will remain largely limited to the ballot box. Citizens are effectively confined to casting a vote once every five years. Beyond that, they have no meaningful way to participate in the state's decision-making processes. Ironically, citizens who are now under the age of 32 have never even had the chance to vote in a real election, due to bad politics. And yet, decisions made by the state affect every aspect of their lives, including the job market, education, healthcare, infrastructure, and the legal system.

This policy vacuum is also felt by practically every person whenever there is a strike due to political unrest, when schools and workplaces are forced to close down, or when people spend hours in traffic due to road blockages by yet another protest over yet another issue.

People often ask, "How can our voices reach the parliament?" The truth is, there is no defined process through which the voice of the common citizen can reach the legislature. Even if a matter is occasionally raised in parliament, either out of goodwill by a politician or through the efforts of an NGO or journalist, no law or convention in Bangladesh allows citizens to formally initiate a matter of public concern. Under the current system, there is also no mechanism to obligate or hold MPs accountable to the demands of their constituency. This institutional void has time and again led to unrest and violence. When there is no peaceful avenue to be heard, people are left with no choice but to block roads and protest, often risking their lives.

In many countries, particularly developed democracies, clear constitutional and legal frameworks exist that allow citizens to bring their voices into the halls of power. These mechanisms are known as "citizens' petitions" or "citizens' initiatives." In countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, and Finland, citizens can propose legislation or policy changes by collecting a required number of signatures. This process creates an institutional bridge between the people and the state, a platform where citizens can participate in shaping policy without resorting to protest.

In the UK, for instance, the government operates an official e-petition platform where anyone can submit a proposal. If a petition garners 10,000 signatures, the government must respond formally. If it reaches 100,000 signatures, the matter is potentially considered for parliamentary debate. The entire system is digital, transparent, and open to public participation. No one needs to take to the streets or face police batons; instead, state policy can be challenged through facts, logic, and social mobilisation.

Germany goes even further in upholding civil rights. Article 17 of the German Basic Law guarantees the "right to petition," allowing any citizen to submit a proposal to the parliamentary Petitions Committee. If a petition receives over 50,000 signatures, the petitioner is entitled to present their case directly before the committee. This is more than just an administrative process; it confers political legitimacy. The thoughts of an ordinary citizen are heard at the very table of lawmakers. That is the true power of democracy.

In Finland, the Citizens' Initiative Act was passed in 2012. According to this law, if 50,000 citizens support a legislative proposal within six months, it must be submitted to parliament and processed like any other bill. What makes this remarkable is that the proposal does not require the support of any political party to be introduced. It is a system that reflects a fundamental trust: that the state listens to its people.

In Bangladesh, no such legal mechanism exists. Our parliament does not have a citizens' petitions committee. There is no concept of a public hearing, nor is there an official online platform for petitions. Even if a citizen sends a formal proposal to parliament, there is no obligation to consider it.

Therefore, a citizens' petition act should be introduced. This law should establish a clear framework: how many signatures must be gathered for a proposal to be submitted to a parliamentary committee? At what threshold does the proposal become eligible for formal debate in parliament? Such a law would also align perfectly with the vision of a "digital Bangladesh." It would require a neutral, government-backed online platform through which citizens could—securely, transparently, and inclusively—submit proposals and gather support through digital signatures.

This law would not merely offer young people a platform to speak; it would strengthen the very foundation of our democracy. A citizen petition system would allow for opposition views and alternative ideas to be aired, not suppressed. It would compel our political leaders to acknowledge that citizens are not just voters, but also active participants and thought leaders in national development.

A common counterargument is that the people of Bangladesh are not yet ready for such a system. But is this view truly credible? If anything, the July uprising has shown the opposite: people are ready; they are simply denied institutional access. If people are prepared to voice their demands by shedding their blood, surely they are also willing to speak through pens and signatures. What's missing is the path, and it is our responsibility to clear it.

If we wish to move away from an era of instability, unrest, and reactionary politics towards a democracy that is inclusive, participatory, and transparent, a citizens' petition act is essential. It is more than just legal reform; it is a transformation in mindset. The state must no longer say, "We will decide whether or not to hear you," but rather, "We are here to listen."

A society matures only when it chooses reason over violence. Citizens' petitions are a path to reason. Let us build that path so that our brothers and sisters need not speak through blood, but rather shape the future of Bangladesh with information, argument, and signatures. A future where even the most ordinary citizen can proudly say: "This state listens to me."

Apon Zahir is a senior research associate at the Centre for Governance Studies (CGS).

This article was originally published on The Daily Star.
Views in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect CGS policy.