|
Prof.
Ali Ashraf, Chairperson of the Session, opened the
discussion by giving the floor to Shaikh Razzaque Ali,
former Speaker, on his request. Referring to Article 78,
Clause V, of the Constitution, Shaikh Razzaque Ali said
that a Bill was drafted during the 5th
Parliament regarding the privileges of the Members of
Parliament and the Parliament itself. He explained that
Article 78, Clause V, provided that privileges of the
Members of Parliament and of Parliament itself would be
determined by an Act of Parliament.
A Bill had been drafted, he said, but was not
passed. He wanted to know whether, as the Parliamentary
Affairs Adviser, Mr. Sengupta would advise the Prime
Minister to enact such a law. His second question was
whether the chairpersons of the committees should be
divided proportionately to the political party's
representation in the House. He believed that
chairpersons of all committees should not be nominated
by the ruling party and was in favour of division on a
proportional basis.
Quoting
from Mr. Suranjit Sengupta's paper on the declining role
of the legislatures all over the world, Mr. Abul Kalam
Azad wanted know what steps Mr. Sengupta, in his
capacity as the Parliamentary Affairs Adviser to the
Prime Minister, had taken to improve the situation.
Taking
the floor Mr. Ashiqur Rahman praised both the
presenters. It was his understanding, he said, that
while Mr. Sengupta has talked about balance between the
executive and the legislature, Mr. Magdy Martinez
Soliman has spoken about control of the executive by the
legislature. Mr. Rahman thought the issue went much
deeper, with the question being who exercises power and
who is behind that power. Although it is said that the
legislature is the centre of all activities, the fact is
that it does not exercise any power directly. Power is
exercised directly by the Ministers through their
Ministries and that is why they are visible. He stressed
that this was not limited to the national level only, as
it has also percolated to the Thana level where the TNO
or the DO exercise more powers and enjoy more prestige
than an educated professor. Mr. Rahman suggested that
this was basically a question of structure.
He said that, although he is the chairman of a
Standing Committee, his private secretary is not
provided with transport or a telephone whereas
Ministers, Secretaries and other people get these
facilities, formally or informally. For democracy to be
meaningful there has to be affinity between the people
and their representatives. Mr. Rahman therefore said
that he found his role as a favour seeker. Since the
Ministers and Secretaries exercise power, lots of MPs
are found loitering in the Secretariat for roads,
schools etc. MPs are lawmakers but they will not survive
because people come to them for relief, roads, schools
etc. He said that “by becoming seekers, the dignity of
MPs is compromised” and felt that the situation should
change so that MPs are not referred to Ministers by the
bureaucrats. He explained that, while the balance was
perhaps difficult to achieve, at least MPs should be
given some dignity so that committee members can act
more effectively. He concluded by saying that MPs should
be given more powers and roles in their respective
constituencies, especially through being able to take a
direct role in the development works in their
constituencies.
Major
(retd) Akhteruzzaman congratulated Mr. Sengupta for
using the term "Prime Minister's
dictatorship". He said that the country was exactly
running under a Prime Minister's dictatorship and that
it was no longer a parliamentary democracy, rather it is
just yes and now with, whatever the Prime Minister says,
being final. He continued to say that the Constitution
is ambiguous about MPs.
There are many other elected people, such as
Union Council members and Poura Sabha Chairmen. Mr.
Sengupta intervened to say that, under Article 65, the
MPs are lawmakers and that, as he was one of the
drafters of the Constitution, perhaps it was a mistake
or oversight that the actual role of MPs was not clearly
stated.
Major
Akhteruzzaman then continued to say that he supported
Mr. Ashiqur Rahman's point and said that it was a pity
MPs had to go from door to door asking for money for
bridges or other things. He praised Mr. Sengupta for
saying that the Speaker should be a conscientious
person.
Prof.
Nizamuddin Ahmed from Chittagong University said he
found a big gap between the title and contents of Mr.
Sengupta's paper. He said he was surprised by two
statements in the paper: 1) that Bangladesh is unique
among the SAARC countries and 2) that Bangladesh has the
second strongest committee system after the USA. He
found it difficult to agree with these statements. Prof.
Ahmed said that the Rules of Procedure framed in 1974
provided for the constitution of eleven committees but
they were not formed. He asked whether this means that
the Constitution had been violated.
Finally, he commented that a lot could be learnt
from the committee system in Indian Lok Sabha,
particularly the way in which the committees scrutinise
demand for grants.
Barrister
Rabia Bhuiyan referred to Mr. Sengupta's comments about
floor debates where misrepresentations take place and
leaders talk more about less substantive issues than
issues of national interest. "As a senior
parliamentarian, how many times have you yourself done
that?" she asked Mr. Sengupta.
She said that in the Parliament there is no
government, no government party or opposition members,
all are Members. She wondered if Mr. Sengupta would take
the lead in speaking "with less interruptions and
dignity" in the House.
Mrs.
Mahmuda Shaugat complained that, with the exception of
the committee room, committee members have no other
place to sit and they have practically no opportunity to
meet. She was of the opinion that there should be rooms
for the members beside the chairperson's room and that
chairpersons should always discuss the agenda of the
next meeting with the members in advance. She also
suggested that after each meeting an evaluation should
be conducted which would, she believed, strengthen the
team-work.
Md.
Khalequzzaman said that the executive, through the
bureaucracy, and the legislature, through the
committees, are competing with each other. All over the
world, he said, the legislature is losing the battle.
More and more legislation is being done by the
government. He
stressed that the legislatures have a particular tool to
strike a balance and that tool is controlling the purse,
which is being done by controlling the budgetary
process. He explained that the Rules of Procedure say
that the appropriation proposals and the finance bill do
not have to go through the committees and asked whether
this provision is ultra vires of the Constitution in the
light of Article 76 and 80.
Dr.
S. Akber said that, as an MP, he was accountable to his
constituents but questioned how to make the government
accountable to the people. He said that, until this is
done, whatever democratic practices are in place are not
valid, continuing to say that, as people's
representatives, whatever we say the executive can
differ but what the executive says we have to accept. He
argued that, this being so, how can the decision making
process be made more accountable?
Col.
(retd) Faruk Khan asked whether in the last 25 years
legislators have failed to exercise the power given to
them by the Constitution.
Mr. Shamsur Rahman continued by questioning
whether the new system of having MPs as chairpersons
would make the committees of Bangladesh Parliament more
effective.
Replying to the questions, Mr. Suranjit Sengupta
reminded all present that he had not come as the Adviser
to the Prime Minister, saying: "I have not come to
defend the government or blame the opposition".
He stressed that, in this Conference, all have to
discuss about how to make the Parliament more effective.
About the phrase "Prime Minister's
dictatorship", Mr Sengupta stated that it started
from Westminster to Australia and New Zealand and now to
the sub-continent. He said that there were three types
of democracies in Asia: in the Middle East it is
monarchical, in South East Asia it is economic
democracy, and in the sub-continent it is parliamentary
democracy. He said that the parliamentary system was
dynamic but reforms after reforms were necessary.
Talking about the Constitutional commitment to the
committee system, Mr. Sengupta said that even in India
there was no Constitutional commitment for parliamentary
committees and stressed that there is a lot of
difference between an ordinary law and a Constitutional
commitment. Even the House of Commons passed the law for
committees only in 1984 but he reminded participants
that Bangladesh put the system into the Constitution in
1972.
Mr.
Sengupta agreed that there could not be a Parliament
without privileges for the Members of Parliament. He
added that, regarding privileges, a draft had been
prepared and it had been vetted by the Law Ministry. He
stressed that the development of the Parliament was a
continuous process. He also added that Article 79 of the
Constitution states that the Parliament should have an
independent secretariat but that this had not been
established.
Replying
to the question from Mr. Abul Kalam Azad, Mr. Sengupta
jokingly said that "he who advises least becomes an
adviser or he who has nothing else to do becomes an
adviser".
He said the committee system as it is now is a
definite improvement. He called it unique in that the
committees can examine legislative proposals and
stressed that "we are in the process of
learning". He
informed participants that the government had taken up
the proposal to provide accommodation to the members of
the committees and that giving staff and logistic
support is also under consideration.
Defending
his remarks about MPs speaking in the plenary sessions
for political gains, Mr. Sengupta said the situation was
the same everywhere, even in Westminster. About the
point made by Mr. Ashiqur Rahman, he said that,
considering widespread illiteracy, poor health and
communication systems, "we are doing the
best". He
continued to say that he regretted that parliaments were
dissolved by persons seeking power which was not due to
the fault of the Members or the Parliament itself,
adding that the challenge remains to make the
legislature more powerful.
Mr. Sengupta
disagreed with the definition that executive means the
bureaucrats. He said when the Parliament will sit
exactly at 10 o'clock, when Ministers and opposition
members will come with their homework done, when
committees will work day in and day out, things will
change as it is the legislature that creates the
executive. Referring
to Article 70, he said it was drafted to stop frequent
changes of governments.
However, he stressed that he was in favour of
whip-free discussions and saw this day as not being far
away. Under Article 142, he explained, the Constitution
can be amended and the Rules of Procedure can also be
amended. He said that if legislators sit across the
table without dividing on party lines, such as in this
Conference, then things will change. He said he was very
impressed by the progress made by the MPs and was in
favour of holding such discourses every week.
He
concluded by saying that committees are not parallel to
government and stating that he strongly favoured a
committee to scrutinise the budget.
On
completion of the response of Mr. Sengupta, Prof. Ali
Ashraf closed the session, thanking all those present
for their active participation.
|
