Expanding the Jatiya Sangsad: Need to re-think

Today, the current administration is facing a severe problem of governance. It continues to display its inability with regard to factors like devolution and decentralisation of power, meaningful reduction of poverty, general crimina-lisation of politics, violence and maintenance of law and order. They have also been unable till now to successfully address several other questions of public interest -- separation of the judiciary from the executive, formation of an impartial anti-corruption commission and electoral reform. It is therefore strange that they should have embarked on another controversial journey.

The election manifesto published by the BNP ahead of the 2001 elections did not include references to the possible expansion of seats in the Parliament. Nevertheless (while presenting the manifesto in a press conference), Chairperson Khaleda Zia had indicated that if her party was elected to office, then her government would consider expanding the number of seats to 500. It has now been reported that the ruling BNP Parliamentary Party after meeting on 21 January this year, has decided to increase the number of seats through constitutional amendment from 300 to 450. This figure will include 50 reserved seats for women (through indirect elections). Apparently, a few MPs belonging to the ruling party had the courage to disagree with such a move, but as is common in our existing autocratic democratic practice, such expressions were disregarded.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Another interesting aspect of decision making was later revealed by "Jai Jai Din' on page 4 of their issue of 20 January, 2004. Apparently, the figure of the expanded parliament would have been 500, but the decision to restrict it to 450 was taken in view of existing maximum potential seating capacity. Architectural constraints seem to have been given consideration. One can thank God for small mercies.

It is public knowledge that the Awami League in its 2001 election manifesto had suggested that there should be an increase of parliamentary seats for women from thirty to sixty, but based on direct election. Several other political parties have also suggested possible increase of seats in the Jatiya Sangsad. The question however is, why now? The political situation is already very sensitive. One would have thought that more efforts toward constructive engagement would have been the order of the day.

The current Coalition Government has the required two-thirds majority in parliament. This has led sometimes to over-confidence. It is also having inversely proportional effects. Coalition Members fail to turn up on time, thereby creating quorum crisis. This apparent lack of seriousness probably emanates from the belief that their representation is safe. One wonders if adding another one hundred fifty will add to or reduce the crisis of convening quorums.

It is true that government can avail of the provisions of Article 142 of the constitution and amend the provisions of the constitution. They have the required two-thirds majority. However, there still remains the question of fairness, compromise and consensus. These are important elements in any democratic process.

We have to remember that the parliament is after all an extension of the will of the people. Today, the Awami League, despite receiving 40.13 per cent of the vote in the last general election in 2001, has only 58 seats in the Jatiya Sangsad. The BNP received 40.97 per cent and has 201 seats. If the existing first past the post process had been replaced by proportional representation, then Awami League would have had at least 120 seats. However, that is an anomaly of democracy that can only be rectified through electoral reform. This wishful thinking also has minor relevance within the scope of this article. Nevertheless, what is important is the percentage of the population who will feel left out through such an amendment. They might justifiably feel that the sovereign will of the people has been disregarded through lack of consultation.

The Awami League leadership have already clearly indicated that they are against such a constitutional move. Notes of dissent have also appeared in the media from political thinkers and analysts from all backgrounds. Caution is being urged by representatives of the civil society.

There are many factors that suggest that such a constitutional move will be hasty. The first deals with the essential question of consensus. Political power must not be seen as being exercised arbitrarily. Having a considerable majority connotes that much more of responsibility and obligation. Jurists have already pointed out that the citizens of this country must discover fairness in such proposals. Constitutional amendments must also be seen as 'being in public interest, bereft of any political motivation' (Barrister Harun-ur-Rashid, The Daily Star, 25 January, 2004).

Any form of amendment of the existing structure will have both administrative and financial implications. Some have argued that such a transformation is required on the ground of demographic change. This view appears to lack merit. Such an increase in the number of seats has not taken place next door in India, where 542 seats have remained constant in the Lok Sabha despite substantial increase in that country's population.

Such a move is generally being considered as unnecessary and critics are correctly pointing out that this will mean additional burden on the national exchequer. This would mean diverting essential funds from other important sectors like education, healthcare and infrastructure building. This would also require fresh delimitation of constituencies by the Election Commission. This process will be time consuming and will most likely lead to accusations of being politically directed. Do we really need this? There are so many other issues pertaining to the electoral dynamics that have not yet been addressed properly -- the question of campaign financing, effective voting procedures and prevention of the tampering of the ballot. Can we not attend to these instead?

The eminent constitutional expert Dr. M Zahir in an interview given to the 'Prothom Alo' on 25 January 2004 has made very pertinent comments. He thinks that any constitutional amendment should only be undertaken after exhaustive discussion within the country. He feels that it is only correct that the process is not seen as unconstitutional or undemocratic.

Important subjects are sometimes decided upon in other countries of the world through the holding of referendums. Switzerland is one example. The principle of referendum is provided for in Article 142 (1A) of our constitution, but it essentially relates to amendment of Article 8 (fundamental principles of state policy), Article 48 (powers of the President) and Article 56 (powers of the Prime Minister). Our administration can take a cue from this possibility. The parliament may in its wisdom adopt a resolution to hold a referendum as soon as possible on the question of expansion of seats in the Parliament and the nature of representation of women in the seats to be set aside for them. The government can then subsequently act on that. This measure would however be expensive.

The other alternative could be to obtain the views of the electorate during the next general elections. Voters could express their opinion as either being for or against such a move. Alternatives could then also be proposed not only as to the additional number of seats but also about whether the expanded number of seats for women should be on the basis of direct voting, nomination or indirect election. This process will not require extra expenditure. It will only require patience.

More than two years have passed since the present government has come to power. It is already facing agitation in the streets. The question of constitutional amendment will only fuel further controversy. There are many areas of governance which need immediate attention of the administration. They need to concentrate on these unresolved issues.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador.