We need a civilising law for our lawmakers

But we expect them to follow some civic norms in the parliament.

Norm refers to a rule that is neither promulgated by an official source, such as a court or legislature, nor enforced by the threat of legal sanctions, yet is regularly complied with [Posner, Chicago School of Law]. The basic norm to maintain congeniality in parliament is yet to be developed but the bad practices of our lawmakers do not show any sign of change.

Norm develops and changes with economic development. I had the opportunity to visit the transport museum of Glasgow in Scotland once. They displayed the public transports used in the past. I went inside some of them and noticed that all of these buses used to have different instructions written inside the body. No doubt that these instructions reflect the public behaviour and attitude of different time periods. For example, some old public buses had instructions like "No spitting, please" or "No standing in the doorway, please," until the 1960s, and then the type of instruction had changed.

It means that even in the Scottish society, people used to spit in the buses or they lacked the sense not to block the door till 1960s. Nobody will see similar instructions now in any bus on the roads of Scotland or any western country. That nobody would spit in the public transport is a social norm now, and not blocking the door to cause trouble to other passengers is a part of the social value in the west . Of course, you will probably see the instructions like "No food, please" or "Use headphone to listen music, please" in public buses in the western world.

Our social norms and values are also changing in all aspects. Possibly, the most important change in our social norm during the last two decades is the wide acceptance of women's role outside the house. Our society has not only accepted women's education but also their economic participation. It was not long ago when the education of girls, especially in the rural areas, was confined to specific tasks, mainly household and domestic chores, and restricted to defined social spaces. Going beyond this defined limit was not only strongly discouraged by friends, relatives, neighbours, and even the family members, but also prevented by direct or indirect action. Women who went beyond the defined limits were immediately insulted, laughed and pointed at, despised and slandered, and "brought down" to the lowest rung of the social ladder.

Because of such confinement women lack the confidence to cope with the prevailing systems of relationship, information and communication and to participate in income generating activities outside their homes . But the microcredit programs, and their consultative process of group formation, help the women to shed their initial diffidence and emboldens them to go beyond the house or the defined limit. The exchanges in the weekly meetings with other women also increase their confidence, and help them to build an atmosphere of mutual trust and economic reciprocity. A large number of rural women are now participating in economic activities, and society has also come to terms with the economic participation of women. This change in our social norm is the most important non-economic benefit of the microcredit programs.

Although our rural society has accomplished a number of positive norms during the last two decades or so, our members of parliament, who are supposed to lay out the rules for the advancement of our society, are still practicing the bad norms of personal attack and castigation. They drum the same norms into the heads of tomorrow's political leaders to such an extent that they may become habits that the next generation of leaders may feel very comfortable with. Therefore, it is important that the current pattern of behaviour of our lawmakers should change. But will they change on their own without any law? The incentives for obeying laws are clear enough but what about the incentives for obeying norms?

Posner identified several incentives for obeying norms. Some norms are self-enforcing. For example, if a member of parliament uses the floor to attack other members, or to speak something off the topic, the speaker can seize his right to talk. The members of his own party can rebuke him for his idiocy. But what happens in our parliament is quite the opposite .

Secondly, some norms are enforced by expression of disapproval, by ridicule, and in extreme cases by ostracism. Obviously, we cannot ostracise our lawmakers. The most effective expression of disapproval can come from the party high ranks. But in most cases, one is applauded by his party colleagues for making indecent comments in the parliament . The top rank leaders are also guilty of using uncongenial words and gestures in the parliament.

Most of the current lawmakers are basically businessman. They know that as long as poverty exists in Bangladesh, and voters are not politically educated, they can win the election by using their money. The disapproval of their bad practices in the parliament by a section of people is no threat to them. Therefore, they can afford to be rowdy and unruly in the house where their main responsibility is to make rules and laws. Isn't it ironic?

According to Posner, people also obey norms out of a sense of guilt or shame. The sense of guilt or shame varies from person to person. What is a matter of shame to someone may be a matter of pride to others. Some people may be ashamed of taking any undue favour, but others may be proud of being able to take bribes. Sense of guilt or shame depends on one's moral and ethical standards and mentality. The way of dressing that you consider to be bizarre or inappropriate, may seem perfectly fine to others. Unfortunately, it seems that our parliament is dominated by the people who do not suffer from any sense of guilt or shame for the public display of their rowdiness, intolerance and churlish attitude. They don't feel ashamed by the public disapproval of their abrasive attitude; instead they feel encouraged to practice the same because party support is with them.

Even our lawmakers cannot deny that they are gradually losing public respect. The reasons for this pertain to misuse of power and their behaviour outside the parliament. But people are also tired of seeing their free-style squabbles and castigation in the parliament. As there is no reason to hope that their behaviour will change, it is time to enact a civilising law to control the degree of chaos in the parliament. In many cases, if a student misbehaves in the kindergarten or first grade, teachers isolate him or her from the rest and put him in a quiet zone for a while. Maybe we need some law like that for our lawmakers. A law becomes a norm when practiced for a long time.

I know that our lawmakers will not make any law for themselves, let alone follow it. My only hope is that some of them will try to understand how frustrated we are about their activities in the parliament to think about a law for them.

The author is Visiting Assistant Professor, Willamette University, US.