|
I
thank the organizers of the Conference for very kindly
inviting me to this difficult assignment. Particularly
because, I am not an expert on Constitutional Law by any
scale of measure, my only qualification being that of a
practitioner and that also at the grassroots level. In
fact, I myself look forward to the lecture by our
experienced colleague in the Parliament whose knowledge
in this area is far more refined than mine by way of his
present position and past experience. Indeed, I look
forward to the whole exercise of today's interaction as
a learning process for myself, which in fact led me to
the acceptance of this challenging invitation.
Please
don't be shocked if I go on to say that the Committee
System in Bangladesh has utterly failed in its purpose,
no real outcome of any committee deliberations has been
seen by the nation until today. Given the difference
between the reality and the "dream" of the
Committee systems, if may use the word
"dream", I can only say that "We are in a
crisis of Accountability in Bangladesh", because
that's exactly what we are in Bangladesh right now! As I
indicated already, I would not be able to be pedagogical
in my approach as I already said I am here only to
learn, nor be able to elucidate the theories and
postulates of constitutional law which I leave to my
respected colleague who will surely have the upper hand
on the dais today as I am already told. What I would be
exposing you to, however, has not really been learnt by
me from textbooks prescribed on the subject at higher
schools of learning, rather learnt through my modest and
mundane day to day discourse with "common men with
conventional wisdom on the grey streets and fields"
of Bangladesh. As a matter of fact, my approach would be
rather candid and I would be using layman's language, a
mannerism that can be interpreted as a modality of
direct person-to-person contact.
But
before I go on to the main theme of this session, let me
provide you with a few basic information relating to our
Committees, like we have nearly half a century
Parliamentary Standing Committees each meeting at least
once a month. You can imagine what a flurry of
accountability (not excluding oversight) it could
generate in the country, (average two significant
meetings a day, weekends excluded)! Has it?
The
fact of the matter is, it hasn't. And one must wonder
why! And unless the committees do not serve the purpose
they are meant to serve, the whole exercise is indeed
redundant! What a wastage of time, energy and money, let
aside the conceptual and intellectual bankruptcy.
Moreover the basic prerequisite for the opposition to
play the oversight role in the committees would be the
appropriate representation of the opposition members in
the said committees. Unfortunately, the effort to
establish a proportional representation of the
opposition parliamentarians in the Standing Committees
has been consistently and vehemently opposed for reasons
best known to the government and to my mind to the very
detriment of the interest of the Government itself.
Until today the opposition members are not appropriately
represented in these committees thus the question of
oversight role remains a far cry in the wilderness!
More
shockingly, the Honourable Speaker of the Parliament who
is supposed to be the guardian of the House as well as
committees was virtually forced to change the minutes of
the Standing Committee Meetings on instruction from the
top level of the Government in Committees headed by him.
Where lies the accountability and transparency of the
Parliament if the Honourable Speaker does not have the
moral courage to resist such undue pressure? Similarly
the Ministers, who are no longer the Chairs of the
Parliamentary Standing Committees as a gesture of
goodwill to allow fellow members of Parliament establish
accountability and transparency, have now taken
advantage of refusal to appear in the Parliamentary
Standing Committee hearings (re: most recent Newspaper
Reports and I will read out just one) and the Speaker is
helpless in imposing the parliamentary norms and
practices to summon them he would then lose the
blessings of the Government by antagonizing his Party
Chief (who couldn't care less about appearing in the
committees) and in the process lose his post of
Speakership.
Recently
the government took the laudable step of introducing the
Weekly Prime Minister's Question half hour in the
Parliament, which definitely was a good step forward in
promoting good governance in the process of
accountability of the government. However it was not
until the introduction of the session that the real
motive of the exercise became apparent to the public.
The exercise just turned into a farce in that instead of
allowing opposition members of the Parliament ask
questions to the honourable Prime Minister, the session
was being used initially to accept the questions of only
treasury bench members. Thus using the mechanism as a
vehicle for propaganda machinery of the government
inside the Parliament rather than allowing the
Parliament to function as a forum for establishing the
accountability and transparency of the government. After
vehement criticism of this, the methods have been
relaxed a bit but hardly 10-20% of all the questions
have been accepted from the opposition bench members
till today. So far for the oversight role of the
opposition in the Parliament.
I
also very much appreciate the frank and open approach of
the management of the
Conference taken to this exercise. Pursuant to
this, I also believe that whatever I have said in this
room would be taken in that spirit, otherwise, the whole
purpose of the exercise would be lost in thin air. I
have not only been frank and open but too frank and too
open! Besides I sincerely hope that nothing of what I
said would be taken personally, nor from a partisan
viewpoint since talking of Constitutional Law and
Parliamentary Committees, I did not have the choice but
to refer to the government of the day; and a lot of
people in this country do not quite comprehend the fact
that it is always the government who is on the dock
facing questions on transparency and accountability, and
the opposition's duty is to establish transparency and
accountability whether inside the house or in the
Committees, which are often referred to as the
mini-house.
I
would illustrate some very obvious cases of what's gone
wrong with the process of committee systems in the
Bangladesh Parliament! I will try to highlight, through
these examples, the major concern in accountability and
oversight in the country. Thus an attempt would be made
to identify some fundamental issues, not as much
relating to formulation of rules of procedures relating
to the Parliamentary Committees but as to the
implementation of the real spirit of it, since I don't
believe we have any dearth of good policies and
legislation, perhaps too many of them. Rather, what is
needed is the removal of the deficiencies in the
implementation mechanisms of our policies and decisions
in achieving economic and social advancement of our
teeming millions, which I believe must be the ultimate
purpose of all our exercises whether through the
parliament or its committees.
The
Finance Committee
I
would first touch on the authority of the members
(whether opposition or treasury bench) in the Finance
Committees. You will have the shock of your life to
learn that our Rules of Procedure categorically state
that the Parliamentary Finance Committee in Bangladesh
cannot discuss the Budget in the Committee Meetings. One
wonders why the parliamentary Finance Committee is there
for anyway if it cannot even discuss the budget! And
what oversight role the opposition can play in the most
important parliamentary Committee under these
circumstances!! It may be of interest to you to note
that the Parliamentary Finance Committee of the recently
dissolved Parliament of India was Chaired by an able
member of the Opposition Bench and not by any member of
the government party. That is what is implied by
accountability of the Government and oversight role of
the opposition. To add to it I would like to add further
that of the 15 Parliamentary Standing Committees in
India 8 (eight) were Chaired by Opposition members and
only 7 (seven) from the treasury bench. We are still far
away from the way of parliamentary democracy in
Bangladesh!
The
Health Committee
I
cannot but draw your attention to the recent happening
in the parliamentary Standing Committee on the Ministry
of Health. The Permanent secretary to the government
(the civil servant) called the Honourable Minister of
Health a "liar" point blank in a standing
Committee Meeting along with reference to specific
documents. What an oversight! The reality of the matter
however is, eventually the secretary lost his job and
removed from the Ministry and the honourable Minister
continues in the Ministry with flying colours. What
oversight role are we talking about in this Conference!
The
Committee on Estimates
Please
forget about the oversight role of the opposition
members, the Chair of the Committee on Estimates himself
tried his best to establish his oversight role in
matters of financial policy planning and allocations. He
was removed from the committee through roundabout means,
as there is no means of removing a chair of a committee
trying to discharge his duty. He lost his job as his
oversight was beginning to make life difficult for many
big shots in the country!
The
Committee of no other than the Parliamentary Affairs
Advisor
The
Honourable Parliamentary Affairs Advisor, who is present
in this Conference, declared boastfully that he makes
his committees open to the press and the media since the
people of the country have a right transparency of the
activities of the government. However might he had meant
what he said, he failed to establish his own ruling in
the committee meeting. His pronouncements turned out to
be a cry in the wilderness. He was forced to carry on
his committee meetings "in camera" and may I
call it "Oversight Role in the comforts of
Privacy?" The fact of the matter is, the opposition
members hardly have any meaningful role to play in their
oversight responsibility, not even the treasury bench
members.
Crisis
of Accountability of the Government
With
due respect to everyone, I would conclude by to spelling
out a simple truth which is often overlooked or
misunderstood even by our learned civil society, not to
speak of poor selves like us politicians. One has to
understand the basic premise of the parliamentary form
of democratic system. The purpose of the Committees or
for that matter the parliament of the day is to
establish the accountability of the government of the
day, not of the previous government, nor of the
opposition of the day. This automatically implies that
not only the opposition members but the treasury bench
members have an equally strong oversight role to be
played within the committees if not a stronger one,
since their interventions can in reality influence the
government decision making more likely. It has to be
understood that in our form of Government all members
whether belonging to the opposition or treasury bench
are non government members, only government members in
the Parliament being those holding Ministerial Offices.
Once this philosophy is well understood, then there
cannot be, to my mind, any conflict between the
government and the opposition MPs in establishing the
oversight, accountability and transparency of the
Government for they are equally morally "duty
bound" and pledged to the people of this country as
their representatives to discharge their
responsibilities with the objective of not only serving
the Party alone but, first and foremost, to fulfil their
commitment to our people and our country. And I would
end by saying that I leave it unto us all, including
myself to undo the wrong in the Committee process of
Bangladesh! Together, we will change it all!
Thank you all for giving me a patient hearing and
bearing up with my rather naive approach to a major
theme of the Conference. Thanking you once again!
|
