What impedes neutrality?
BNP has been abstaining from attending parliamentary proceedings since the budget-sessions began. Their demands include "a graceful solution" to the dispute over seating arrangements within the House, restoration of certain facilities of Khaleda Zia, and ending the "smear campaign" against her on BTV over her Dhaka cantonment house.
There have been mixed reactions to BNP's absence in the budget session. Many feel that BNP has been abstaining from the budget session over "silly issues," paying no attention to their electoral pledges made to the people before the December 29 parliamentary election. The opposition could have played an important role by participating in the discussions on the budget. As the "shadow cabinet," the opposition could critique the current government as well as offer alternative policies.
However, others have found both the ruling and opposition benches responsible for this situation. They see an autocratic attitude in AL, which could have been more accommodative.
Are the problems insuperable? Has the speaker played his role to bring back the opposition to the House?
In Bangladesh, the political parties, particularly the ruling party, must do whatever it takes towards developing a political culture that can contribute to a successful democracy.
To attain this objective, the ruling leadership must respect the opinions of the opposition, resolve all political disputes in the spirit of democracy, and take all steps to make the parliament more effective. Unfortunately, this has not been happening.
The sky would not have fallen if one more front-bench seat was given to BNP. The Awami League could have easily left the fate of the Dhaka cantonment house, occupied by Khaleda Zia, to the court's decision.
Failure of the speaker to play his role neutrally during the period of successive political governments has been an important reason for the parliament's ineffectiveness. Available sources suggest that the speaker has always played a blatantly partisan role.
Take the case of the speakers of the BNP and Awami League between 1991 and 2006. They were both under constant political pressure, failing to act independently. They only fulfilled the desire of the ruling party.
The situation has not changed under the incumbent speaker. Many of the allegations levelled against the immediate past speaker, Jamiruddin Sircar, can be levelled against the present speaker, Abdul Hamid. As the guardian of parliament, his role has not been non-partisan:
-The rules of procedure of parliament (ROP) have fully empowered the speaker to decide the distribution of seats among lawmakers in the House. He has succumbed to the pressure of the treasury bench not to allocate one more seat to BNP.
-Speaker Abdul Hamid turned down all five notices from BNP-led opposition legislators asking for discussion on issues like scarcity of relief materials in Aila-affected areas, the February rebellion at BDR headquarters, things allegedly taken away by the speaker of the 7th parliament, and privileges enjoyed by the chief whip of the same parliament. The speaker refused to accept any of these notices, as the treasury bench did not agree to discuss those issues.
-The Daily Star on June 11 reported that the House proceedings on June 10 could not be resumed on schedule due to a quorum crisis, meaning that not even 60 lawmakers were present in the House on time, despite over 260 of them being from the ruling alliance. This speaks of the speaker's inability to run the House smoothly.
-The speaker did not rebuff the statement of a senior ruling party leader in the House on June 29 asking the absentee opposition to quit parliament by tendering resignation.
-The speaker has not yet taken any serious initiative to bring the main opposition BNP back to the House.
What impedes the neutrality of the speaker?
A close look into the procedure of the election of the speaker reveals that only the MP who is proposed and seconded by the majority party is sure to be elected as the speaker. So only an MP with unquestionable loyalty to the majority party can expect to be nominated by his party for the post of the speaker. The speaker's position is not very secure. According to Article 74(2) of the constitution, the speaker may be removed by parliament by the votes of a majority of all the MPs. This means that the speaker's continuation in his office depends on his allegiance to the party in power. Unlike his counterpart in the House of Commons, he cannot continue in office for as long as he wants, no matter whether the party which first proposed him for the speakership has returned with a majority or not. The speaker of the House of Commons becomes a non-party man after his election and does not participate in politics. He is recognised as the impartial custodian of the rights of the members on the treasury and opposition benches. In general elections, it is customary for the speaker to stand without party affiliation. Since parties began being listed on ballot papers, the speaker's affiliation is shown as "Speaker Seeking Re-election." But not in Bangladesh. Here, the speaker's neutrality in the discharge of his functions and responsibilities in the parliament may incur the displeasure of the prime minister and other high-ups of the party in power. He may not get the ticket to contest in the next parliamentary election, so he stands to lose his parliamentary seat. Unless corrective measures are taken, the speakers of the Bangladesh parliament will continue to be partisan in their responsibilities, and this will only hinder the growth of parliamentary democracy in the country.
A close look into the procedure of the election of the speaker reveals that only the MP who is proposed and seconded by the majority party is sure to be elected as the speaker. So only an MP with unquestionable loyalty to the majority party can expect to be nominated by his party for the post of the speaker. The speaker's position is not very secure. According to Article 74(2) of the constitution, the speaker may be removed by parliament by the votes of a majority of all the MPs. This means that the speaker's continuation in his office depends on his allegiance to the party in power. Unlike his counterpart in the House of Commons, he cannot continue in office for as long as he wants, no matter whether the party which first proposed him for the speakership has returned with a majority or not. The speaker of the House of Commons becomes a non-party man after his election and does not participate in politics. He is recognised as the impartial custodian of the rights of the members on the treasury and opposition benches. In general elections, it is customary for the speaker to stand without party affiliation. Since parties began being listed on ballot papers, the speaker's affiliation is shown as "Speaker Seeking Re-election." But not in Bangladesh. Here, the speaker's neutrality in the discharge of his functions and responsibilities in the parliament may incur the displeasure of the prime minister and other high-ups of the party in power. He may not get the ticket to contest in the next parliamentary election, so he stands to lose his parliamentary seat. Unless corrective measures are taken, the speakers of the Bangladesh parliament will continue to be partisan in their responsibilities, and this will only hinder the growth of parliamentary democracy in the country.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments