Role of Speaker: Problems and Prospects
THE Speaker as an impartial presiding officer and defender of the rights of Parliament and of Members, performs his duties with the advice of parliamentary staff who are politically impartial servants of the institution of Parliament. The Speaker represents the House. He represents the dignity of the House, the freedom of the House, and because the House represents the nation, in a particular way, the Speaker becomes the symbol of the Nation's freedom and liberty. Therefore, it is always expected that the Speaker should be in an honoured position and a free position. And the position should be occupied always by men of outstanding ability and impartiality.
The Speaker presides over the debates in the House but does not participate himself. He maintains order, enforces the rules as necessary, interprets the standing orders and the practice of the House, deals with points of order and gives ruling when called upon to do so.
The Speaker is also equipped with disciplinary powers by which he can call members to order. He suspends a sitting in circumstances of grave disorder, orders a member to resume his seat or withdraw from the chamber for the remainder of the day's sitting.
He calls on members to speak in debate and his choice is not open to dispute. He is also equipped with powers which emphasise the judicial nature of his office such as his power to rule on the admissibility of bills, motions and amendments; to decide whether a question of privilege should have precedence over all other business. Apart from these the Speaker has residuary powers to decide any matter arising in connection with the business of the House and its committees for which no specific provision exist in the rule and his decision shall be final.
Once elected, the Speaker sheds his previous political affiliation and not only becomes totally impartial but is seen to be so. He changes his lifestyle and no longer allows himself informal social activities permitted to other members. He may not pursue friendships which would appear to favour certain members above others. To a great extent he isolates himself from the camaraderie of Parliamentary life, at the same time remaining accessible to all his colleagues and ever a sympathetic listener to their problems, personal as well as parliamentary. This is, in a nutshell, the whole concept of British Speakership though in reality it has got a different picture too. Leaving the concept of British Speakership aside, let us look at the Speakership in Bangladesh.
The Speakership here in Bangladesh has got a number of problems in reality and these were never been adequately addressed before. A member of Parliament in this country once elected Speaker neither resigns from his party nor abstains from representing his constituency from where he was elected as an MP. Though, as Speaker, he does not attend the party meeting yet he continues representing his constituency and quite often making representation to the Government on behalf of his constituents. After the expiry of his term as Speaker he will have to again seek party nomination, and people's mandate too, in order to get elected as an MP in all subsequent elections. For these obvious reasons he is somewhat pledge-bound to make political contact with the people of his constituency. In so doing the Speaker as member of Parliament sometimes gets himself involved in political activities. This is rather not humanly possible for a person to remain politically impartial so long he is to seek people's verdict in subsequent elections.
In the British Speakership a system has already been developed that once a member is elected Speaker, generally he will be elected as member of parliament almost un-opposed in the next Parliamentary election. Apart from these, in some of the Commonwealth parliaments there are long-standing Parliamentary practice which enables the Speaker to remain as a symbol of unity. But like it or not, we do not have, I am afraid, such a Parliamentary culture as yet to establish our office of the Speaker as symbol of nation's unity.
To maintain the impartiality of the Speaker some of the important things need to be politically discussed. These, to my little understanding, are when the Speakers are impartial in the chair do they retain party membership, attend caucus meetings, speak on issues especially those affecting their constituencies? The concept of neutrality and its value in preserving the integrity of the system in a partisan political environment needs also to be politically resolved.
The problems for presiding officers in reconciling non-partisanship in the Chair with election campaign, solving constituency problems and representing constituency in important political debates are also considered as role of the Speaker. In British politics these attempts of Speaker are popularly known as 'Behind the Speaker Chair' which, in fact, developed the consensual nature of British politics. There are two other things which also need to be looked at in defining the role of the Speaker and these are: Role of former Speakers: Do they return to party politics and do the Speakers have more private influence with ministers?
The Speaker as Head of the Legislature faces a spectrum of problems with other organs of the state such as the Executive and the Judiciary. Recently I had an opportunity to attend a training seminar for Secretaries to Legislatures of Asia region held in Calcutta hosted by Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA). In that seminar 'Independence of Parliament - concept and reality' was thoroughly discussed. The Resource persons during discussion made an observation that unless financial sovereignty of Parliament can be ensured, the independence of Parliament cannot be established in reality. Because the legislature particularly in this region have got very little control over the financial matter and expenditure, they sometimes get into a tussle with the Finance Ministry of the Government. It was further observed in the said seminar that the problems highlighted above cannot be happily resolved in the absence of a proper Parliamentary culture. In developing a proper Parliamentary culture the political community should put their heads together in order that they can arrive at some sort of consensus on major political issues, which, I am sure, would pave the way for non-confrontational politics. Failing which democracy cannot be sustained for a long period of time in the midst of political disturbances in a country like ours.
The politicians of the country shall not forget that Parliamentary culture is a broad expression in which several aspects of representative democracy are subsumed. Parliament reflects people's power. We follow Westminster model of parliamentary democracy. Oliver Cornwall's victory in the English civil war created an all powerful image for the Parliament. The Earl of Pembroke declared in 1646, that "a Parliament can do anything except making a man a woman and a woman a man". The Primacy as well as the supremacy of the parliament in democratic governance, to my understanding, is fundamental to wholesome parliamentary culture. The Legislature is expected to participate in governance along with the Executive and the Judiciary.
How does the Legislature participate in governance? It performs its function, primarily by making laws. The laws should reflect the collective will of the people. They should reflect and be consistent with what is understood as the 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.
Legislatures 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 in the nature of 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 being constituted by the representatives of the people, they are indeed to guard the guardians. This gives rise to the principle of accountability.
The writer is a judicial officer now working as Law Officer to Parliament Secretariat.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments