Sorting out the bad apples

The eight pieces of information to be furnished by a parliamentary candidate are i) academic qualification with certificates, ii) whether the candidate is accused in any criminal case, iii) whether there was any past record of criminal case and the result, iv) profession, v) source or sources of income, vi) previous record as MP, vii) statement of assets and liabilities and dependants of the candidate, and viii) particulars of loan taken from banks or financial institutions personally, jointly or by dependants or by business firms in which the candidate is involved.

The High Court bench passed the order after hearing the rule of public interest litigation (PIL) writ petition filed by three senior lawyers of the Supreme Court on April 23. The lawyers filed the writ petition seeking direction to the Election Commission (EC) asking that essential information from the parliamentary candidates should be made mandatory. The High Court, taking into cognizance the writ petition filed as a public interest litigation, issued a rule on the government and the Election Commission asking them to show cause, why they should not be directed to compel the candidates seeking election to parliament to provide a set of vital information. Neither the government nor the Election Commission who were the respondents to the rule contested, apparently showing tacit approval of the demands raised by the petitioners.

Declaring the rule absolute the High Court bench observed: "Every voter has got the right to know the antecedents of the candidate so that they vote for a man of honesty, integrity and capable of meeting their hopes and aspirations." Some of the jurists opined that the verdict of the High Court resulted in "automatic reforms in procedures of election to parliament meeting the long cherished desire of the electorates. Defaulters, men with criminal records and black money holders are debarred from seeking election."

There had been a long legal battle in India for making it mandatory for the candidates seeking election to Parliament to provide a set of vital information. Delhi High Court after hearing of a petition filed on public interest litigation in 1999, directed the Election Commission to make it mandatory for the candidates of parliamentary election to submit information relating to his past criminal records, academic qualification and statement of assets and liabilities. Both the government and the then main opposition Congress, appealed to the Supreme Court against the verdict of Delhi High Court. But the Supreme Court of India agreed with the verdict of Delhi High Court on the issue. Later on, the government made amendment to the Section 33 B of the Representation of the People Act to nullify the Supreme Court order. The Supreme Court of India then took a bold step against the government to strike down the Section 33 B of the Representation of the People Act and enforced its judgment. The Supreme Court of India also categorically directed that the non-disclosure of these vital information would be a ground for rejection of nomination submitted by a candidate seeking election to Parliament. Finally the Election Commission of India issued notification in March, 2003 to implement the Supreme Court's verdict.

Our national parliament could not be made functional due to the poor performance of our lawmakers. Quorum crisis is the most crucial issue in our parliament. Our lawmakers, who are mostly businessmen by profession, like to stay away from the House on various excuses. The MPs of the opposition parties have made it their business for continuous boycotting of parliament. On the other hand, the treasury bench members are always found not much interested in discussing the issues of national importance. While discussing the national budget, many of the lawmakers were found to be veered off into unnecessary areas. A particular point of agony for the country has been that in a very large number of instances the Speaker could not start sessions in time due to quorum failure.

The reality, as reported in the survey report of the Bangladesh chapter of Transparency International is however sadly different. The report on functioning of our parliament revealed that a total amount of Taka 2.35 crore was wasted in three (4th, 5th, and 6th) sessions of the current 8th Parliament due to quorum crisis. The time lost in quorum failure amounted to 26.15 hours of the total session time of 127.50 hours. Only 22 hours were spent on legislative business. Interestingly, the lawmakers uttered the names of their party leaders at least 493 times during their deliberations. The report also suggested imposing fines to the MPs for not attending the sessions for a consecutive period of time.

The lawmakers of both the ruling and opposition parties have agreed to increase their privileges through enacting a law which will provide them with legal protection. The lawmakers of the ruling BNP and the opposition Awami League at a high-powered parliamentary body meeting held on January 18 reached a consensus that their existing privileges are not adequate and decided to formulate the necessary laws through the Ministry of Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs to increase their privileges. The lawmakers of the country observed that, though they are provided with the facilities like accommodation, car, and telephone at the expenses from the public coffer, there is no legal protection for them in the existing provisions of the law. The monthly allowances of the MPs have also been increased from July 2003. Naturally the people of the country expected better performances of their representatives in the parliament. But most of the MPs have failed to fulfill the aspiration of the people whom they represent.

There are also other charges against our respected legislators and members of parliament, which are no less serious. Many of them do not pay telephone bills though they draw the allocated money for telephone regularly. The fact remains that they did not pay a staggering amount of Tk 8.61 crore over a long period of time, despite the fact that they received a monthly telephone allowance, once revised upward, for payment of their telephone bills. Some of the MPs also demanded a bill-free telephone. A common citizen having a telephone usually could not get away with non-payment of telephone bills for more than three months, as the T&T authority disconnect the line. But the MPs did not face any such action by the T&T authority, though the quantum of their default is much higher. Not all, but a good number of MPs did not care to clear their telephone bills in time. The lawmakers demanded tax-free cars and many of them imported cars of the latest model availing the tax-free privilege. Many of these costly cars were ultimately sold for profit.

The lawmakers of both the ruling BNP and opposition Awami League agreed to increase their privileges through enacting a law. It reveals that the MPs on the treasury bench and in opposition agree in their own interest only, but never in the interest of the people and the country. So far as my poor knowledge goes, both the ruling and opposition party MPs earlier agreed for increasing their monthly allowances in June 2003 and later on for having costly duty-free cars.

It was not long ago when candidates seeking election to parliament were mainly the political elites, who were popular in the society for their social services and dedication. But now the nouveau riches who believes that money determines the man's status and that nothing is unfair in the pursuit of wealth have stepped into the political scenario. They have scant respect for the established norms of politics and do not hesitate to resort to unconventional means to achieve their goals. These nouveau riches have resorted to vote buying, rigging, and costly campaigns, and thus made the democratic system corrupted, which is no doubt a bad omen for the country. The parliament has become less important for them after winning the election, as they are now busy running after the ministers to get funds to meet their election expenses. Such activities of our MPs only reveal their ineligibility to be lawmakers. Making law for the country and people is not a matter of joke. The people of the country wish that the most competent and decent should have the opportunity of doing the job.

The author is Assistant General Manager, Sonali Bank Head Office.