JS to be further marginalised?

At a time when there should be redoubled efforts to bring parliament to life, steps seem to be contemplated to further weaken it. We understand that the government has no control over the opposition boycott -- seen as exerting the most benumbing influence on the parliamentary proceedings. But the government has also failed to manage its own house -- a point made clear by the lack of quorum in parliament sessions. Similarly, the parliamentary standing committees are not working regularly.

We believe the plan to increase the time between two sessions to 90 days is a blatant attempt to undermine functioning of parliament. We have to bear in mind that in the presence of a powerful executive branch of the government, the parliament plays a pivotal role in ensuring transparency and accountability.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Its seems the whole plan is based on the erroneous concept that fewer working days at the parliament will give the lawmakers more time to concentrate on development activities in their constituencies. Here we would like to point out that MPs are elected to parliament to work there as people's representatives. They should have no direct role in development works that are supposed to be undertaken and supervised by the elected local government representatives. If the lawmakers are brought into the picture, there will be overlapping of duties.

The ruling party is wrongly focusing on the development functions of the MPs. By lessening the frequency of parliament sessions, the government will only institutionalise two very negative things. First, the emphasis on the MPs having a direct role in development might foster an antagonistic relationship between them and the local government representatives. Second, the primacy of parliament in a democracy will be given a short shrift.

Parliament as the centre-piece of popular sovereignty must have a fuller play with its sessions held every two months in the very least.