Delineating public representatives' roles
THE Members of Parliament (MPs) in a democracy are elected mainly for framing laws in parliament as well as bringing the various problems of their constituency to the notice of the government for redress. The problems may relate to the development of the area the MP in question represents or other issues that affects the lives of the electorate. In any advanced democracy such as in the United Kingdom (UK), an MP looks after such problems of the electorate. In this connection, tax related issues, for example, inland revenue, customs, excise, health service, social security issues including pension or insurance, immigration, grants for schools and so on come within the purview of an MP's areas of concern. It is important to note that in all these cases, the problems to be addressed should be within the jurisdiction of the central government, for the MP will not interfere with the issues addressed by the local government.
Bangladesh, too, has been practising parliamentary form of democracy in a more or less uninterrupted fashion since 1991, excepting the periods of the intervening unelected caretaker governments appointed for the purpose of holding general elections. But that does not mean that we are new in democracy, for even as far back in the 1950s democracy had the chance to thrive in this part of the world. Unfortunately, despite the people's love for democracy and all the sacrifices they have made, it was never allowed to flourish in an uninterrupted fashion for long. As a result, after each break, the people had to start it all over again. But still, it would be a mistake to say that it is for the first time that the people, the politicians and the intelligentsia of the country are experiencing a democratic form of government.
One may like to ask at this point: why is it then that in many cases democratic practice is conspicuous by its absence either in the sphere of governance or in the way the political parties run, especially the major ones, that are known for their glorious struggles for establishing democracy?
Interestingly though, in our discussions, oratory, political slogans and writings, we prove to be very fond of and also conversant with democracy so far as the abstract implications of the term go. But we begin to falter as soon as the question of its implementation comes. That is because we are yet to change our attitude, which is the sine qua non for practising democracy in the practical field by a person. And it is exactly at this point that our leaders and thinkers have largely failed to make their mark.
The governments that take office through election have developed the notion that they are democratic by default for the simple reason that they have been voted into office. But in actual practice, election is not the last word, but only the precondition for a democratic government. It is therefore not surprising that though we have an elected democracy in office since 1991, we can hardly claim that with the last 19 years' experience democratic values have struck any root in the government and society.
It is therefore time, we had a serious soul searching about why we have not been able to make much headway in giving democracy an institutional shape at least during the last 19 years.
On this score, it is possible to put the argument here that two decades' time is rather short for democracy to take root. But at the same time, such contention flies in the face of the claim made earlier that the country, its people, politicians and the intelligentsia are no stranger to democracy.
As pointed out earlier, for democracy to be institutionalised, we have to be prepared for a change in our behaviour and outlook at least in the affairs of governance as well as in the political culture so far as the attitude of the leaders, workers and followers of the different political parties towards their opponents is concerned.
The incumbent government, before and after coming to power, had pledged that there would be a 'change' in the way the government would run its business. Now it is its turn to be up to that pledge through effecting a change in our outlook so that it fits into the standard norms of democracy.
As the proverbial charity begins at home, so in the case of an elected government, it should start with elected representative of the people, the MPs. The MPs need to know what their responsibilities are other than framing laws in the Jatiya Sangsad (parliament). In this context, the parties in the Jatiya Sangsad can borrow from the experience of the countries where democracy is the way of life. As narrated in the beginning, an MP of the British Parliament has a clearly defined role to play for the constituents. This helps them avoid overlapping with the area of activities of other government or elected bodies such as the local governments. In Bangladesh context, it is imperative that such delineation of the rights and responsibilities of the elected representatives is made, if only to avoid confusion or clash of interests with other government or elected bodies.
The government in office can take the initiative to take the cue from more advanced democracies in this respect.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments