Editorial
Ordinances can be starting point for promised change
All those in public interest should be kept
The government is evidently in quite a race with time. It has to dispose of, one way or the other, the 122 ordinances left by the caretaker government. Given the time constraint and also the constitutional imperative for dealing with the ordinances, even if selectively, we can suggest a three-some approach for the government's consideration.
We are doing it in full realisation and knowledge, and also being driven by public interest considerations, that it is both a prerogative and responsibility of an elected government to ratify all ordinances made in public interest.
The overall approach has to be first-tracked to get the job done within the stipulated time period ending on February 24. For the sake of convenience but without compromising fundamental principles, let's categorise the 122 ordinances under three criteria: First, some of these having outlived their utility, it is just going through the motions to jettison them from the book. Secondly, and very pertinently, there are ordinances of purely legalistic nature, which if not ratified by the government, would amount to negating its constitutional continuity as these fundamentally relate to operationalising the election that helped usher in a parliament and transition to an elected government. In the third category, fall those ordinances which were need-based as far as the caretaker government went since these were warranted for a reformed and better functioning of the institutions.
The last-named include some very epoch-making, highly significant and long overdue measures, such as those providing for separation of judiciary from the executive, local government commission, right to information (RTI), human rights commission and the like.
The point we wish to drive home is that the ordinances that the MPs determine to be clearly in public interest and public welfare orientated; in one word, capable of securing public good, should be adopted straight away. For the ordinances regarded as being oriented to public good but still would need some modifications for improvement, these can be adopted subject to amendment at a future date.
Principally, as a time saving procedure the government would be well-advised to make up its mind on the ordinances it is convinced should be adopted, those that must be enacted per se into law and those that need to be adopted but subject to amendment in future.
The overarching criterion, in our view, that should be applied is whether a measure was designed to improve governance and move the society forward or not. Why the time, energy and expertise that went into making some of the ordinances should go waste? By speedily and determinedly doing the job well, none other than the government itself will be the beneficiary.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments