Future of parliamentary democracy in Bangladesh
Photo: Amdadul Huq/ Drik News
PARLIAMENTARY democracy is a way of life that demands of its adherents qualities like tolerance, respect for differing views and freedom for all to express their grievances and seek legitimate remedies. The raison d'etre of our war of independence was parliamentary democracy, and that commitment had been reflected in the Constitution although subsequent amendments stood in the way of smooth functioning of parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy, despite the fact that it is very expensive, is the best form of governance in the contemporary world. Does the legislature participate in governance? Who guards the guardians? Does the parliament speak for the people? These are some questions that need to be answered. As my understanding goes, yes, the legislature does participate in governance and it does guard the guardians and it does speak for the people. The legislature participates in governance by performing its function, which is primarily the making of laws. The laws should reflect the collective will of the people. The should reflect, and be consistent with, what is understood as "Common Law" or "Natural Law," which is distinct from "Statutory Law." For example, Human rights and fundamental freedoms like freedom of association, freedom of speech etc., are natural and axiomatic and are, therefore, construed as part and parcel of the natural law. The legislature should also perform the function of securing the accountability of the executive. It is the job of the executive to run the government on a day-to-day basis. In running the government, the executive wields enormous powers. Decision makers in the executive are like guardians of public interest. But the question that has always been asked since the days of Plato and Aristotle is "who will guard the guardians?" Legislatures, because they are constituted by the representatives of the people, are indeed meant to guard the guardians. This gives rise to the principle of accountability. The legislators themselves are accountable to the public at large. Stated differently, each parliamentarian is accountable to his electors. This again can only be ex-post facto. We cannot have the system of recall of legislators with whom the electorate is not satisfied. Hence, the ex-post facto exercise in securing accountability of their representatives by the electors. This brings us to the question of orderly conduct of business in the House by the parliamentarians. Legislature simply means the national parliament of a country, and is composed of treasury and opposition benches. Both the treasury and the opposition benches, being inseparable parts of the legislature, are expected to perform their distinct roles. But, unfortunately, the opposition in this part of the world is either not allowed to play its due role or is not willing to play its due role. As a citizen of the country my only concern is that parliamentary democracy cannot take a shape without effective opposition in parliament. The term "opposition" normally means a coherent group of people regularly acting together and able to present themselves collectively to the electorate as an alternative government with an alternative policy. Ivor Jennings described the role of the opposition in a parliamentary democracy as: "The government tends to regard the opposition as the brake on a car going uphill and where the opposition think that the car is going downhill; uphill and downhill are terms relative to some motion of level. And there no recognised standard by which the impartial person, if there were one, could determine his conclusion." Edward Shills observed: "The effective and continuous existence of political democracy requires a fairly coherent and responsible opposition to the ruling party, while working within the rules of the parliament. This opposition should not simply interest itself in the obstruction and depreciation of the majority. It should be capable of criticising the majority's measures on the basis of detailed and realistic information about the situation in the country and the performance of the executive. The opposition should be sufficiently coherent to control or to isolate extremists who do not wish to work within the constitutional system. The opposition must be able to resist the temptations of conspiracy and subversion and the governing party must like-wise avoid the idea that opposition is in itself a step in the direction of subversion." Therefore, the future of parliamentary democracy largely depends on the constructive engagement of both the ruling party and the opposition in parliament, without which institutionalisation of parliamentary democracy cannot be taken forward. In a parliamentary democracy the party in power runs the government and the opposition gives alternative plans of governance and forms a shadow cabinet. But it is unfortunate that in our country the opposition boycotts the parliament sessions in protest of political issues, thereby depriving the constituents they represent in the House. The opposition says that they are not allowed to play their right role in the parliament while the party in power says that the opposition is boycotting the parliament on flimsy pretexts, keeping their constituencies unrepresented. Whatever the case may be, there must be a happy marriage between the two at least for the sake of sustenance of democracy. This culture of boycotting the parliament or not accommodating the opposition in the parliament should go once for all for the growth of parliamentary democracy. If we cannot make sure that both the treasury and the opposition benches are playing their right roles in parliament democracy will continue to be interrupted, and the event popularly known as "one eleven" will be repeated. It is the high time for us to find a way out of the confrontational and conflicting way of politics and to come forward to establish consensual nature of politics. It is a disgrace that even 38 years after independence we could not achieve national consensus on national issues. How long do we have to keep on debating issues like who declared independence, who are the freedom fighters and who are the war criminals? It does not make sense in an impoverish country of 150 million people. The essence of parliamentary democracy is certainly good governance. The smooth functioning of parliamentary democracy cannot be ensured unless we can develop a parliamentary culture of our own in order in make sure the participation of the legislature in the process of governance. I sincerely hope that these vital issues will be addressed by the political community with due importance. Parliamentary culture is a broad expression in which several aspects of representative democracy are subsumed. Parliament reflects people's power. We follow the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy. Oliver Cromwell's victory created an all-powerful image for parliament. The Earl of Pembroke declared in 1949 that: "A parliament can do anything but make a man a woman and a woman a man." The primacy as well as supremacy in democratic government according to my knowledge is fundamental to wholesome parliamentary culture. Along with the executive and judiciary, the legislature has its own role in the governance of a country. We have learnt many lessons in the recent past about how the democratic process can be upset by other forces, therefore the political community must bridge their narrow political differences for growth and sustenance of parliamentary democracy. I would like to conclude by quoting an English philosopher who said: "Nothing can be more authentic than one's own experience."
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments