Parliamentary democracy: A missed opportunity?

The answer is obviously no. Rather our parliament, many may differ with me, appears to be a centre of spitting venom. Our parliament seems to be an apparatus of approving the desires and whims of the political parties in power. Our parliament has turned into a place where its members are reluctant to go.

Many may dub our democracy a nascent one. But we should not forget that "morning shows the day." Those who can't perform at 7 (years) can't perform at 70. After introduction of parliamentary democracy, 14 years have elapsed. We have seen three general elections (excepting the February 15, 1996 elections). But the status of our parliament as well as our democracy does not bring in any hope in our minds.

We the general people can't rest our confidence on our national leaders, who actually determine out fates. Rather, the democratic institutions saw continuous erosion through politicisation, nepotism, and corruption. Bureaucracy has been dismantled, higher judiciary polluted, and lower judiciary captured. Sacred institutions like Public Service Commission, Election Commission, and public universities have been made controversial. The general people now don't have minimum trust and faith on these institutions, which even in the military regimes, had maintained their dignity and purity. Under these circumstances, the parliament, which is the central force to rectify all odds, has become unbelievably ineffective and dysfunctional in respect of delivering its duties and services, for the commoners. After establishment of democracy in 1991, the countrymen hoped a radical change in our administrative system where a total transparency and accountability would be ensured. The countrymen hoped that politicians would show more responsibility for their deeds and words. But their hopes and aspirations were shattered when the leaders made a volta-face to the commitments. Instead of becoming peoples' leaders, they put their efforts to become party leaders. Instead of protecting the interest of the country and its people, their prime interests were to derive personal and party interests. Getting passed in the elections by hook and crook becomes the main concern of our leaders.

Look at the current eighth parliament. The Daily Star and some other vernacular dailies in their series of reports depicted a lacklustre performance of our current parliament. Opposition Awami League remained out of the House for most of the time, giving this or that reasons. Treasury Bench members also did not show their interest and enthusiasm to join the House. As a result, the House ran without quorum for most of the time. The leader of the House was also seen less interested in attending the House and her cabinet colleagues followed her suit.

But the output of the House is even more insignificant. There was no discussion on major issues the country faced during the last four years. Grenade attacks on AL rally on August 21, incidents of killing of Ahsanullah Master and SAMS Kibria, August 17 bomb blasts, price hike of essentials, law and order situation, etc did not get approval of the Speaker and the Treasury Bench decision-makers to be discussed in the House. On the other hand, the ruling party rescind the privileges of the treasury bench members to place private members bills in the house directly.

However, I personally do not find any substantial meaning of discussing things in the House. During my last 15 years of covering the parliament as a reporter, I did not find any bill was passed placed by the opposition, any amendment included in any bill brought by the opposition members, any private member resolution that was approved that had been placed by the opposition members. Then what is the meaning of this futile exercise when the members (both Treasury and opposition) did not have enough opportunity to speak about their electorates' demands and get those approved?

The current constitutional provisions and rules of procedure of the parliament do not allow the Treasury Bench members to talk against any decision or bill of the government. There was no instance of taking any measures by the ruling government as suggested by the opposition. In fact nothing, except the 12th amendment reintroducing the parliamentary democracy system, had been approved in the House through consensus of the opposition and Treasury Bench members during the last 15 years. Our parliament witnesses a lot of debate and heat but finally yields nothing beyond the ambit of the government desires.

Under this dismal scenario of the House, the parliament did an excellent job of framing standing committees headed by the non-minister members. But they are also missing their services due to the intransigent attitude of the government. In fact, the standing committees failed to be the real watchdog in ensuring transparency and accountability of the government, especially in the backdrop of Bangladesh's continuing corruption. The concerned ministers often skip the meetings of the standing committees and ministries do not provide necessary information and assistance, and the recommendations and decisions of the committees gather dust in the absence of mandatory execution of their decisions.

Public representatives should have the authority to debate on the issues of public interest whatever their party affiliation may be. They should have the freedom to vote to any side in the house they wish through amending the necessary clauses of the Article 70 of the constitution. I think, Article 70, which stipulates that a person elected as a member of parliament at an election at which he was nominated as a candidate by a political party shall vacate his seat if he resigns from that party or votes in parliament against the party, is a barrier in fulfilling the desires of the people as well as the members.

Nazrul Islam is a freelance journalist.