Editorial
Seeking more power for JS committees
Clear-cut criteria of functions should be the principle here
THE parliamentary standing committee on the law, justice and parliamentary affairs ministry has put forward a legislative proposal aimed at compelling individuals summoned by it or any other such committee to appear before it. The proposal also stipulates that the committees must be provided with any documents they ask for at any time. On balance, we at this newspaper feel that the proposal has much merit about it. And we feel that way because we think powerful, purposeful and functional parliamentary committees are one of the factors which strengthen the democratic process in a country. That is ensured through such committees stressing the need to study various issues in detail and clarifying the various aspects of a given situation through seeking information from relevant individuals. We have had occasion to observe the workings of parliamentary committees in the West, especially Britain and the United States. The precedents established by these committees abroad could serve as the foundations our parliamentary committees are based on.
On the face of it, the move is a good and well-intentioned one. And since lawmakers are empowered by the rules to make or amend any law they consider to be in the national interest, they are well within their rights to go ahead with the proposal in question. However, there should also be a caveat here. If the parliamentary committees give themselves the authority to summon individuals before them and make sure that those individuals do appear before them, they should take care to see to it that such authority is not misused. In other words, the summons issued by a parliamentary committee must not hang over people's heads as a sword of Damocles. The entire purpose behind summoning individuals and asking for documents must not dwindle into being or be looked upon by people as an exercise in inducing fear among functionaries. The criteria on which the committees will work must be those that are specifically concerned with the public interest and under no circumstances must there be even the slightest hint of individuals' right to privacy being threatened by the summons served by the committees.
Unless there are reassurances on this score, the entire reasoning behind seeking such powers for the parliamentary committees will lose meaning. We believe that before the committees go for such an enhancement of their powers, our lawmakers would do well to study established parliamentary procedures in other countries and share the information gleaned thus with the people. No loopholes must be there that can bring the committees' methods into question. We have seen the recent unhealthy tussle between a parliamentary standing committee and the Anti-Corruption Commission. The lesson coming from that experience is that neither parliament nor democracy is served when individual emotions get the upper hand in the working of a committee. We are not convinced that the conflict we spoke of served the public interest.
There are patent risks to having over-empowered parliamentary committees. They just might end up being Frankensteins that may well intrude into areas where they should not. Such risks must be borne in mind if the work of the standing committees is to be a promising, not to say enlightening, experience for the country.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments