Parliament in peril

Recently held numerous workshops, round tables and seminars attended by political leaders, academics and sitting MPs from both sides have identified black money, muscle power and abuse of administrative machinery as dominating elements that play the notorious role in winning an election. Muscle power and local administration/election machinery are allegedly bought by money. Hence black money is the prime culprit that begins its footwork at the time of securing nomination from political parties and culminates in manipulation of election results. An MP wields enormous power over local administration, local government institutions, development agencies and police. He can influence decision makers at the helm of affairs by exploiting the unfettered access and immunity that he enjoys as an MP. For him this spending is an investment which would pay attractive dividend. So, from the day-one his only agenda seems to recoup the money he invested in the election (in multiple terms). Time available is five years.

The notorious influence of black money doomed the prospect of seasoned politicians, selfless leaders and men/women of vision getting elected who could propel the parliament with dedication, professionalism and vision. Hence by far the majority of MPs have no interest in the business of the parliament. They vie for more power, authority and control over the local government bodies, development projects, administration and law enforcing agencies. One may argue that as a people's representative he must have the final words in the affairs of administration and development activities of his area. But it should be borne in mind that the development work should be the primary domain of the local government and other development agencies of the central government. Local administration and law enforcing agencies must be kept out of the ominous influence of any black money-holder, law breaker and muscle brandishing MP to ensure that law takes its own course and local judiciary is not vitiated.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

An MP's primary role is law making in the parliament and ensure accountability of all agencies through meaningful and vigorous deliberations in parliamentary committees. It is incompatible that the same person will perform the development work, lay hands on executive machinery and simultaneously sit in the parliamentary committees as an MP to ensure his own accountability. This separation of power must be guaranteed. If one is really interested to lead development activities in his area, he should vie for a position in Upazila or Zila Parishad. The parliament should be an exclusive premise for law makers.

The beauty and very strength of democracy is that it diffuses tension in the society by ensuring participation of people. This concept of participatory or bipartisan politics is fast waning in our society. The opposition must be heard in the parliament and it has to be given a space to manoeuvre and vindicate its position vis-à-vis national issues as a matter of right since it, too, has received mandate of people. But the malignant winner-take-all syndrome hindered the desired cohesion and further deepened the political and social divide. Points of Order, adjournment motions, notices and amendments raised by the opposition members, however reasonable or relevant, are summarily dismissed in the parliament. Ruthless suppression of opposition's political programmes and denying them street rallies led to suffocation thereby making the opposition more desperate and arrogant. There are allegations that Upazilas having opposition MPs are deprived of development resource allocations. Thus people are being punished for not voting for the party/parties in power. This narrow and malicious attitude of the ruling parties gives birth to an isolationist syndrome. People of the deprived localities feel alien in their own country. They are being punished for exercising their right of franchise.

The functioning of a vibrant parliament depends largely upon how the Speaker conducts the business of the House. As to a father all children are equal (rather he extends his protective hands more to the weaker offspring), so is the expectation from a Speaker that his weaker child sitting on his left will receive encouragement for more active participation in the business of the House. But the Speaker seems timid and shaky because his position depends on the mercy of the treasury bench. While memory of unceremonious exit of President B. Chowdhury continues to haunt, one cannot expect a magnanimous or strictly neutral behaviour from the Speaker. He needs to be extricated from the clutches of mercy of a brute majority in order to make his two babies (treasury bench and the opposition) glisten with equal lustre.

The Gresham's law of money supply has now come to play in the political arena of the country when good people are driven away by the holders of bad money. In order to reverse the situation here are some points that may be considered:

1. Since black money and muscle power have been found to dominate the Parliament elections and this is done with ulterior motive of extracting heavy dividend from the membership in the parliament, it is pertinent that possible windows that fetch questionable incomes be identified and members of parliament stripped of all those overt and covert manoeuvring scopes. An MP's primary responsibility is law making, providing guidelines through deliberations in parliament, formulate budget, exert tight control over public spending and ensure accountability through vigorous activities in parliamentary committees. But any such move has to be supported by stringent amendments and strict adherence to changed election rules coupled with a genuine desire of the top notches of political parties.

2. Presently the term of parliament is five years. Once elected, the Treasury Bench MPs allegedly develop a feeling that they have been granted irrevocable lease of the country for five years. This long tenure not only acts in the back of their mind while making calculations of election spending and possible return but also make them oblivious of the fact that they will have to return to the constituency for fresh mandate. In our context five-year seems too long a period and the culture of snap (mid-term) election is unknown. So, if the term of parliament is reduced to three years (at best four years) it will lower the rate of return and may tend to discourage wild election spending by those outlaws grazing happily in the political pasture of the country. Secondly, three years term will remind an MP that in not too distant a future he will have to go back to his voters to seek fresh mandate. Thirdly, since we are living in a culture of winner-take-all, the loser party will have lesser heart burning and may be prepared to give three years time to the winner. One may, however, argue that three-year is too short a period for a political party to deliver results to the people and that the country cannot afford such huge expenditure from the national exchequer to conduct parliament elections so frequently. But the expected benefits -- political, economic and social -- to be yielded by three years arrangement will outweigh the cost in the long run.

3. The Speaker is the prime mover who gives life to the body of parliament. He is expected to be a neutral person conducting the business without discrimination. But the soil under his feet is too soft to peddle fearlessly and rise above partisanship because his tenure as Speaker depends on the pleasure of the majority. The statutory posts like those of Supreme Court Judges, CEC, Chairman of PSC, or the newly formed ACC have been insulated from any such capricious actions. Their removal has been made difficult. Similarly, tenure of Speaker should not lie at the mercy of simple majority of MPs. His removal should require either three fourths of MPs or follow the procedure applicable to Supreme Court Judges. The Speaker has to be demonstratively neutral in the discharge of his responsibilities which not only the MPs but the people at large should feel as well. The Speaker is not expected to run to Prime Minister's office at his/her call. Both PM and the Leader of the Opposition should call on him at his office. During the immediate past regime this etiquette was scrupulously practiced. The former Prime Minister no hesitation to meet the Speaker in latter's office in the parliament whenever needed. Ostensibly, this may sound mundane but these aspects have a demonstrative effect that moulds people's perception, enhances confidence of the Speaker and shores up image of the parliament.

The quality of democracy prevailing in a society is ultimately epitomised in the performance of its parliament. The output of a parliament or its excellence depends upon the quality of its members, their perception and a clear understanding of their prime responsibility as law makers. If and when winning a seat in parliament means a passport to amassing more wealth and an protect black money, the fundamental work of law making is thrown overboard. The Speaker's wisdom and neutral role make a parliament's deliberations meaningful and help dismantle the wall that divides political parties of the country. But the Speaker can only be effective when he feels that his lifeline no longer depends on the caprice of the Treasury Bench. Also the position of the Speaker has to be insulated against insecurity and black mail.

Demands for reforms in care taker government, Election Commission and election rules are increasingly gaining momentum. Let there be a total approach to incorporate a reform package that would address all the snags. We only hope that wisdom prevails. Otherwise, an enduring democratic culture will remain a sound of the distant drum. The Constitution of the country is not something ordained coming from Heaven, nor a fait accompli that cannot be amended for the sake of our posterity.

Ahmad Mahmudur Raza Chowdhury is a former civil servant. Any comments to rcmahmud@yahoo.com