Is it possible to break our parliamentary deadlock?

The principal forum of democracy is the parliament. It forms government and enacts laws. It is there that the state policies are formulated and measures taken to implement those. It raises revenue and authorises expenditure. It gives guidance to the executive in governance as well as supervises them and controls their actions in almost all spheres of public activities. The scope and dimension of parliamentary functions have expanded in an evolutionary manner. But have we been able to run the parliament the way it should run?

Our story is a grim record of disillusionment and depredation. The responsibility lies, it is sad to say, with us, representing all the major political parties that have ruled the country so long. From the very beginning of our statehood, hardly with any exception, parliamentary elections were held to pick up the chosen candidates of the rulers of the day. It was much later, since 1991, that parliamentary elections were conducted, by and large, in a free, fair and impartial manner. Having made this remarkable achievement, we bogged down on the subsequent steps that are necessary to complete the process of democracy.

To conduct business the parliamentarians obviously have to attend parliamentary sessions. Since 1991, the then parties in opposition stayed away from sessions for months together. The reasons advanced were, curiously, the same by both the major political parties, the BNP and the Awami League, respectively while in opposition. They contended that their members were not allowed enough time to speak and sometimes not to speak at all. They boycotted parliamentary sessions, rendering them ineffective. The parliament was not legally ineffective, but it lost the moral ground to carry on business without the voice of the opposition which, in effect, is the essence of democracy. Often, they alleged that the Speaker was not impartial. Yet, people in general are of the opinion that the grounds for boycotting parliamentary sessions are flimsy, unjust and extremely harmful for democracy and the nation. The constituents remain unrepresented in the highest state forum to which they had elected their political representatives.

The election of February 1996 was totally boycotted by the major opposition party, the Awami League, obviously on political grounds. But following the June 1996 election, the principal political party in opposition, this time the BNP, also abstained for long from the parliament largely furnishing the same reasons advanced by the erstwhile opposition party, the Awami League, earlier. Now, also after the 2001 election, the same drama was enacted, this time again by the opposition Awami League, which has been abstaining from the sessions for almost 90 days. The reasons or excuses were more or less the same as those of the ruling party when it was in the opposition. It seems we have now developed a political culture, not merely of confrontational politics, but of non-cooperational politics.

This politics of non-cooperation has stemmed for the unwelcome attitude of intolerance, greed, envy and genuine lack of respect for the principles and precepts of democracy. There is a total absence of the spirit of understanding and the will to resolve differences through dialogue. The differences professed by the two sides on various issues are not insurmountable and can be resolved through negotiations, given the will to do so. But the genuine desire to reach a compromise by holding talks does not appear to exist. Here lies the crux of the problem. The opposition, now as in the past, became impatient and wanted to grab power before the incumbent government completes its mandated tenure of office. To meet such a demand is, no doubt, undemocratic and unconstitutional, even if the government failed to govern the nation. But to determine the quality of governance is the prerogative of the citizens, who will give their verdict at the polls during the subsequent election. No one section of citizens enjoys that privilege.

The duty of the parliamentarians to attend parliament needs no special reasoning. The citizens voted their lawmakers to frame legislation, govern the country and promote socio-economic development. However, those members who are in the government generally enjoy these facilities. But those who are in the opposition also have a definite role to play and provide positive inputs by way of making constructive suggestions to arrive at the most appropriate decisions on matters of national interest. The voters would expect their representatives use the parliamentary forum to discuss national issues in general and those which affect them or their constituencies in particular. Continued absence would be tantamount to breaking the trust reposed in the elected legislators. The only punitive measure consists in the loss of membership on account of prolonged absence for 90 working days. But one can evade this provision by coming to the parliament on the 90th day or before, save membership and continue to enjoy remuneration and all the perks that go with the membership. Critics observe the provision of 90 days needs to be cut down drastically. But will it help?

When the nation faced such problems in the past, various methods were employed to resolve the crisis. The first such effort was made by a third party at the behest of the Commonwealth Secretary General, Chief Emeka Anyaoku. He dispatched his representative, the reputed Australian juror and politician, Sir Ninian Stephens, in 1994 to settle dispute between the ruling BNP and the opposition Awami League. He worked hard for a month as a "Facilitator". Unfortunately, his formula was rejected by the opposition and he went back dejected. Next, representatives of the two parties met at the residence of a third party, Ambassador of a friendly country. It flopped at the last moment because of the failure of the then opposition to turn up on the final session.

Then, during the Awami League regime, there was direct negotiation between the two parties through mediation of Speaker Humayun Rasheed Chowdhury. The opposition BNP was brought back to the parliament, though the truce broke in no time. Finally, immediately after the election of October 2001 the good offices of several Heads of Diplomatic Mission ventured as a mission to resolve some problems. The Opposition Awami League first alleged heavy rigging in the election and rejected its outcome. Then they refused to take oath of office as parliamentarians. Then they refused to join the parliamentary sessions. The Envoys met with leaders of the two major political parties separately at the residences of two chosen party leaders. These problems were resolved but some other substantive ones remained and gave rise to many other problems, finally present boycott of the parliamentary sessions.

What then are the steps that can be taken to mitigate the situation? The need for that became more acute on account of the decision of the opposition to take the issues outside the parliament, in the streets. It took the form of an anti-government movement with the consequent chaos, conflict, violence and bloodshed. The forcible hartals resulted in enormous loss to the economy and created instability in the country. The continued demand for the resignation of the government and for a mid-term election remains unheeded. Yet the opposition is determined to go ahead with its movement. The nation is, no doubt, faced with many problems, some being grave. The recently defeated BJP in Indian election magnanimously pledged the victorious Congress party all cooperation. On the other hand, the vanquished in Bangladesh's last election vowed to create problems for the victor from the very beginning of their tenure. What a contrast? What a pity?

In Bangladesh, it has now become difficult to make the two adversaries sit together. However, we witnessed with admiration that the two arch rivals, India and Pakistan, sat together to settle their disputes over which they went to war. And more recently, Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Shroeder was invited by the French President Jacques Chirac at the commemoration of the Second World War's Normandy invasion in presence of the American President and the British Queen. Such manifestation of compassion is unheard of. Then what prevents our leaders to sit together in a bid to promote understanding on a comparatively mundane affair?

But one may argue that even if the two parties are made to sit together, without genuine desire nothing could be accomplished. One may bring the horse to water, but one cannot make him drink. Similarly, one may advance a host of arguments in order to mitigate the fear and apprehensions of wrong- doing by the other. But, if there is a hidden agenda, no amount of logic would budge a party from its pre-determined stand. However, one feels that the glare of cameramen and publicity media might tend to make the two parties more rigid. In that case, the other alternative would be a third party mediation or facilitation, in a clandestine manner, by those who matter to both. But who is to bell the cat? A million dollar question.

M.M.Rezaul Karim, a former Ambassador, is a member of BNP's Advisory Council.