Issues of national interest must be discussed in parliament

The framers of the constitution of Bangladesh, which was adopted on November 4, 1972 and came into force on 16 December of the same year, decided in favour of a Westminster style of parliamentary system. The president became a ceremonial head of state. The executive power was vested in the prime minister. But many knowledgeable people are of the opinion that parliamentary democracy need not always be Westminster type, it could be tailor-made to suit the particular needs of an indigenous people. This proved to be true in the case of Bangladesh. The conditions required for the successful functioning of the complex Westminster style of parliamentary democracy did not exist in the newly independent Bangladesh. The result was the demise of the parliamentary democracy within a period of less than three years since its introduction. After staying 15 years under various military and presidential rules, the country reintroduced parliamentary democracy in 1991.

There are no two opinions that parliament should be the most appropriate place for the discussion and disposal of all issues of national interest. Now the question arises as to why the parliament has, during the period of successive political governments, failed to be an effective focal point for discussing and disposing of important national issues.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

First, in the newly independent Bangladesh, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founding father of the nation and first prime minister, used his towering charisma in such a way that he himself became the AL party and he was also the political order. In the first general election of 1973 in independent Bangladesh, the AL got 293 seats against the total 300 seats for direct election. Out of the remaining seven seats, one went to Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal, one to Bangladesh Jatiya League and five to independent candidates. The total number of the AL lawmakers, including the 15 reserved for women, stood at 308 against the total strength of 315. As the total strength of the opposition was very marginal, the prime minister and leader of the house refused to accept an official opposition in the parliament. The absence of an official opposition was a serious setback in the proper functioning of parliamentary system of government.

With the overwhelming majority in parliament, the AL leadership went for constitutional amendments that curtailed the fundamental rights of the citizens and changed the basic character of the constitution. The constitution (second amendment) act, 1973 substituting article 33 empowered the government to detain a person for six months and deny legal protection to individuals detained or arrested. The bill proposing to enact this law was neither sent for eliciting public opinion nor to select committee as suggested by the unofficial opposition. This bill was passed by a division vote of 250-0 and took only two hours in the midst of a walkout by Ataur Rahman Khan and Abdus Sattar, two prominent opposition leaders.

Lawmaking power of the legislature was greatly diminished with the promulgation of presidential ordinances, which were later regularised by the house. Available information suggests that in the first parliament (1973-75), out of the total of 110 acts passed by the house, 91 were presidential ordinances. The constitution (fourth amendment) bill, 1975, which completely changed the character and fundamental structure of the constitution (introducing one-party dictatorial presidential rule in place of multi-party parliamentary system) was circulated among the lawmakers after their arrival in the house suppressing the requirement of three to seven days' notice for introducing a bill in the house. Available information reveals that certain rules of parliamentary procedure were suspended in their application to the motion. Ultimately, voting was over in three minutes, by a division vote of 294-0 the bill was passed where the opposition walked out. The entire procedure, thereby, took less than half an hour with participation of one opposition MP.

Second, during the fifteen plus years of various military and presidential rules beginning from August 15, 1975 the parliament, when in existence, functioned in name only. People had no faith in stage-managed elections. There was no strong opposition in parliament. The executive power of the republic was vested in the president and he was not answerable to parliament. Naturally, the parliament had little control or supervision over the activities of the executive. During this period, parliament's main role was the ratification of the activities of two martial regimes.

Third, people expected that with the reintroduction of parliamentary form of government in 1991, parliament would be the focal point for the national politics and all matters of national interest. But things happened in the opposite direction. The BNP came to power on the results of the election held on February 27, 1991under the caretaker government of president Shahabuddin Ahmed, a nominee of the combined opposition formed to topple the government of president Ershad. The BNP government showed reluctance to the demand of the three major opposition parties -- the AL, Jatiya Party and Jamaat-e-Islami -- to formally introduce caretaker system of government in the constitution. So the opposition resorted to hartals and sustained boycott of parliament. To press the ruling BNP, the opposition lawmakers went to the extent of submitting their resignation on December 28, 1994. This meant that for two years parliament was run without any opposition, and laws were made and budgets passed without any scrutiny and debate. No issue of economic or social policy was discussed. Some political analysts are of the view that the ruling BNP thought that the participation of the opposition was not necessary, and with their boycotting of parliament it was easier for the BNP to pass laws and run parliament and the government.

Fourth, when the AL formed the government on the basis of the results of general election of June 12, 1996, it received the same treatment from the BNP. The BNP resorted to boycotting parliament frequently on a number of allegations such as absence of neutrality of the speaker, instituting false cases against opposition leaders and workers, violation of human rights, corruption, misuse of power by the government, etc. The incident that marked the beginning of the deterioration of relationship was that Begum Khaleda Zia, leader of the opposition, was denied the opportunity to speak when the speaker turned off the microphone on three occasions in the first session. Within a short period the relationship between the ruling AL and the main opposition BNP deteriorated to the point at which there was a long boycott of the parliament by the BNP. Two agreements signed between the ruling AL and the opposition failed to resolve the problem. This led to the boycott of parliament by the opposition for two years from April 1999. Here again the ruling AL thought that it was easier to run the parliament without the participation of the main opposition.

Fifth, the BNP-led four-party alliance won the general election held on October 1, 2001 and formed the government. The main opposition AL has resorted to long boycott of parliament on the allegations that are almost similar to those brought by the BNP during the immediate past AL rule. Laws were made and the budget for the year 2005-2006 passed without the participation of the main opposition AL. More importantly, the AL-led fourteen-party alliance has come up with two demands: one, reforms in the non-party caretaker system of government and two, reforms in the election commission (EC). Although the ruling alliance appears to be flexible on the question of reforms in the EC, it is adamant not to bring any change in the system of caretaker system of government. The situation has gone to such extent that the ruling alliance's non-acceptance of the aforesaid two demands may lead to submission of en masse resignation by the AL lawmakers.

Sixth, failure of the speakers to play their due role during the period of the successive political governments has been one of the reasons for ineffectiveness of parliament. In Britain and India, where parliamentary democracy has been functioning successfully, the speaker becomes a non-party man after his election. He is, accordingly, recognised as the non-partisan and impartial custodian of the rights of the members in the treasury and opposition benches. But in Bangladesh, the speaker continues to be party man after his election. In Bangladesh, the common criticisms against the speakers during the period of successive political governments include, inter alia, lack of neutrality, failure to protect the rights of the legislators from the dictation of the executive, failure to prevent quorum crises in the house, and absence of serious initiative to end the parliament boycott by the main opposition party MPs assuring them that their genuine grievances pertaining to the conduct of the house would be removed.

Not that the criticisms are baseless. Moudud Ahmed in his South Asia: Crisis of Development (2002) writes: " Another distinctive feature in Bangladesh politics is the role of the Speaker. Unlike in India, and other more developed countries, the Speakers in Bangladesh have played a blatantly partisan role. In both the Parliaments, under the BNP and the Awami League, the Speaker functioned under the influence of the respective political parties. This is one of the reasons why politics in Parliament failed to grow. There was very little difference in the behaviour and approach towards the opposition between the Speaker under the BNP government (1991-96) and the Speaker under the Awami League government (1996-2001). Each of them was under constant political pressure of the party they belonged to and failed to act independently." Mention may be made that there has been no change in the behaviour and approach of the speaker under the present BNP-led alliance government.

Last but not the least, there has been a tendency among the governments to bypass the parliament in matters of general public importance. For instance, the immediate past AL government introduced two-day weekly holiday on Friday and Saturday. The then main opposition BNP severely criticised this as a blow to the national economy. The BNP-led alliance government that came to power in 2001, made Friday the weekly holiday. Of late, the alliance government has decided to revert to the two-day weekly holiday on Friday and Saturday. People in general and the businessmen in particular have severely criticised this decision of the government. The point to be noted here is that neither the AL government nor the BNP government considered it necessary to discuss this matter of general public interest in the parliament. Further, the government has recently decided to introduce unitary mode in the secondary education level in place of multi-track mode existing for about 40 years. Here again the government did not feel it necessary to discuss this important national issue in the parliament. More such instances may be cited. This goes against the principle of making parliament the most appropriate place to discuss all issues of national interest.

To conclude, a vibrant and effective parliament is a sine qua non for successful functioning of parliamentary democracy. This is the responsibility of the BNP-led alliance in power, the main opposition and other political parties having representation in parliament or not. But the onus primarily falls on the alliance government. People are anxious to see parliament as the focal point of national politics and all activities of national interest.

M. Abdul Latif Mondal is a former Secretary to government.