Opinion
Four-plus-one year tenure for better governance
Recently a proposal for a four-year parliament (in place of the five-year one) was put forward by renowned essayist and educationist Prof. Serajul Islam Chowdhury in an interview with The Daily Star (November 18). After three days, Prof. Nazrul Islam, not only supported Prof. Chowdhury's point of view, but also elaborated on his proposal in his article "Vital reforms ignored" (DS Pcp 21/11/2008).
I wholeheartedly support this view of having a four-year parliamentary government and add that the tenure of the unelected interim government should be a full year instead of the present three months. The three-month tenure of the caretaker govt. (CG) to deal with huge backlogs created by our so-called pro-people politicians has been proving utterly inadequate. The interim period of governance must deal with renewing the voter list, clearing the politicized administration (if they dare to do so again!) and bringing the corrupt politicians to book. So a one-year long CG seems very logical.
I don't think we missed the train yet. The interim government is negotiating many things with the major political parties. Now I dwell on the ways of realizing the provisions constitutionally. The next Parliament needs to ratify also the works of this too lengthy, decidedly ultravires government of the caretaker character. The negotiation also includes improvements to the party constitutions. So the interim government can raise the issue of some essential amendments also to the national Constitution (that the parties can pledge to do in the next Parliament).
Let's ask our politicians to amend Article 58B, 72(3) and 123(3). On the tenure of CG, Article 58B now speaks only "till the date on which a new Prime Minister enters upon his office"; this can be replaced with "'till finishing one year in office' or 'till the date on which a new Prime Minister enters upon his office' which comes later". In Article 72(3) on the tenure of a Parliament, "five years" can be replaced with "four years". In Article 123(3) on general election, "ninety days" can be replaced with "a year or 365 days"; but for by-election, 90 days [Article 123(4)] can stay as it is. A by-product benefit of such a provision can be that the election can be held always in winter (dry season) from this year onwards.
For having a Chief Adviser (CA) to the CG that would run the government for a full year, some technical provisions must be dealt with. The aim of CG provision is holding a free and fair election to the next Parliament.
There are four provisions for appointing the CA: 1) The last CJ or any CJ retired before him [Article 58C(3)], 2) The last retired Judge of the Appellate Division or any one retired before him [Article 58C(4)], 3) A qualified citizen based on political consensus ([Article 58C(5)] and 4) The President himself in case all the prior three provisions exhausted and failed [Article 58C(6)].
I propose bringing provision 3 to 1 to avoid mishandling with the singular first provision of appointing the last retired CJ as CA. It is now clear that a political consensus is needed even in considering the CJ; so why not try from the plural qualified citizenry first! This provision will elevate the morale of our high profile citizens having benign aspiration for governing the country well at least for a short period. Other provisions can be as such only having clear wording on considering all the retired CJ's in a line before opting for the other SC Judges' line and the President can come only after clearly showing that all the other three provisions in order (after amendment) were exhausted.
Besides, during the proposed four-year parliamentary period, our elected MPs must enjoy freedom of thought and expression of that unhindered. Article 70 is a safeguard against floor-crossing; so the intention was good, no doubt. But the provision snatched away the freedom of speech and action of the elected MPs. It is understood that usually an MP resigns from a party just to join another, but voting against the party is almost always out of conscience. So let's make a compromise between the two: after amendment, Article 70(1) can provide for vacating an MP's seat if s/he "resigns from that party" (as it is now), but the part "or votes in Parliament against that party" should be repealed along with the explanation thereof.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments