|
It
is now an undisputed proposition that Committee system
is the most effective organ through which the growing
and altered needs of a Parliament are well performed.
That is why, as early as in 1885, Woodrow Wilson
asserted that, "Congressional Government is
committee government ", adding that, "congress
in its committee room is congress at work". In
almost every respect committees and sub-committees are
the "ears, eyes and hands", of a Parliament.
This third arm, and a long arm at that, has slowly,
gradually and perceptively evolved in the democratic
world which are, in fact, "microcosms" and an
extension of the Parliament with wide Power. Nowadays, a
Parliament through its venous committees, like the
standing Committees on different Ministries, Select
Committees, Special Committees get very important and
increasing part of its investigating and inquisitional
functions done.
Although
the scope, ambit and Periphery of a Parliamentary
Committee or Sub-Committee are well defined and
Procedures are also generally prescribed in the rules of
Procedure or at times such committees may work following
precedents and convention, but there are no set rules as
to the functions of Chairperson in the Committee
system. The speaker of a Parliament works according to
the Rules of Procedure written or unwritten and,
sometimes, has to follow conventions and/or precedents.
He has some routine works of the day: question hours,
disposal of various motions, call attention notices,
legislative business and similar such business to
transact. The capability, intelligence, efficiency and
wisdom of a Speaker faces acid test when the House goes
unruly or when there has been a scheduled or unscheduled
debate or a point of order to be allowed or discarded or
any other similar matter not contemplated or expected to
come up for a hot debate. His neutral and non- partisan
role coupled with his skill, wit, humour and wisdom
should play a very vital role in avoiding any untoward
situation in the whole House. This certainly becomes
sometimes difficult but may not appear to be that
impossible to a tactful, intelligent, wily and
non-partisan Speaker.
But
the functions of a Chairman of a Parliamentary
Committee, or of a Sub-Committee, are quite different in
nature. Its main objective is to go deep into the
subject or matter assigned to it, recommend definite
ways and means to solve the problem or matter that comes
up to it for consideration. But no or very little useful
purpose could be served if such recommendations are not
unanimous or near to unanimity or else the Parliament or
the nation is not in any way benefited. Here, in the
Committee, members of different political parties
elected to the Parliament sit face-to-face, deliberate
on the subject matter from his/her own party line, which
may be diametrically opposite. The Chairman has, of
course, a great role to play, with a view to arriving at
a unanimous decision keeping in view the greater
interest of the nation, which again is subjective and
debatable. As stated by one of the Senior Ministers in
the 5th parliament, who was Chairman of the
Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, in explaining
his inability to submit report on a bill for more than 4
years which sought for a constitutional amendment
relating to separation of judiciary from the Executive,
“there are lot of knotty problems and opinions are at
great variance, Mr. Speaker, and we are not in a
position to open the knot".
A
Chairman has always to depend upon the support of other
members of the Committee in his sincere effort to get
unanimous decision on any matter that comes up for
consideration. He may expect the support of the members
belonging to his own party but may face difficulties in
getting support from the members belonging to other
Political Parties. In such a situation a Chairman has to
be very skilful at balancing attitudes within his
committee by taking resort to various means. He should
be as friendly as possible, try to show logically the
good or bad side of every proposition, look for
something to praise everyone, try to correct someone
with good humour, would not insist to get any decision
but patiently listen to all keeping himself silent
(silence sometimes acts miraculously), will not show his
anxiety but his ability as much as he could.
As
I have said above, to achieve an objective and a result
keeping in view the greater national interest, a
chairperson is required to gain the respect and support
of Committee members by his superior knowledge and
up-to-date information about the subject matter in
question. He should have the ability to reconcile
conflicting interests inside the Committee. He must know
the skilful art as to how he should exercise his
prerogatives in a very responsible manner. This art of
managing things properly and squarely is something
special of the person who is chairing the committee. He
must know and acquire a special acumen of how to handle
the particular issue or matter in question, when and
where to hit and to whose court the ball is to be
thrown.
I
may cite two examples as precisely as possible. As
Speaker, I -was the Chairman of Petition Committee of
Bangladesh Parliament formed under Rule 231 of the Rules
of Procedure. Under Rule 232 the duty of the Committee
was to report to the house on specific complaints made
in the Petition referred to it and to suggest remedial
measures in a concrete form. In 1993 alarming reports
were being published in the newspapers that hundreds of
children were dying in different child Hospitals.
Investigating reports suggested that the cause of such
death be due to a medicine named "Flamodel"
manufactured by Adflem Pharmaceutical Ltd., which were
being used in those hospitals for treatment of children.
To our amazement we found that neither the Drug Control
Department nor any administrative Authority took any
step to inquire into the matter and adopt remedial
measures. I decided to put it up as an agenda in a
meeting of the Petition Committee based on the newspaper
reports although it was not the rule to take suo
motu cognizance of any such matter by the speaker.
The point at issue was whether the Speaker could
suo-motu take cognizance of any such report, summon the
concerned medicine companies, Hospital authorities, Drug
Control Department and others concerned. I placed almost
all the news paper reports before each of the members
and appealed to their good conscience to make the hands
of this Committee long so as to take suo-motu cognizance
of such alarming incidents by the Chairman. Then I
remained silent, as the question was one to enhance the
authority of the Speaker himself, allowed the members of
the Committee to deliberate on this issue as long as
they desired. I did not show any further interest. To my
amazement, I found everyone has agreed as to suo-motu
cognizance and we could take a unanimous decision. The
ultimate result was that the medicine companies
manufacturing such harmful medicine by using cheap
chemicals were punished, their licenses cancelled and
the inactive bureaucracy found a Parliamentary Committee
really at work. This decision of the Petition Committee
was highly acclaimed and praised by the people and the
press. The failure of our bureaucracy in enforcing the
law in so many fields could very well be resisted if the
parliament and Parliamentary Committees can rise above
personal and party interest.
Another
example is the role of the Present standing Committee on
the Ministry of Land Administration and Land Reforms of
which 1, my revered friend Mr. Suranjit Sengupta,
Hon'ble Minister of State Mr. Rashed Mosharraf, amongst
others, happen to be members. In the first meeting of
the Committee we decided that this Committee would
always venture to adopt a unanimous decision. The
Chairman never interferes in our deliberations. All of
us find ample opportunity to discuss various problems
relating to land administration and land reforms and
have so far been able to arrive at a number of unanimous
decisions in a sub-committee of which repeal of the
vested property law is a milestone.
This
short analysis of the role of a Chairperson in the
Committee system suggest that the functions of a
Chairperson is not simply a procedural one but is
substantive in nature. This office is not only
prestigious but very responsible as well. It is
sometimes argued that a Chairperson of a Parliamentary
Committee should be selected from amongst the senior and
experienced members of the Parliament. The argument is
widely but not commonly acceptable. Critics argue that
seniors are generally “senile, conservative and
dictatorial”. But my own experience is that this
seniority principle, which could only be followed in the
case of selection only, is better to be avoided as a
matter of principle and particularly in view of the fact
that now a days government is exercised through
Parliament. In consideration of the nature of the
assignments and the works to be done by a Parliamentary
Committee or a Sub-Committee the Chairperson should be
elected either by the Parliament itself or by the
members of the particular committee. In that case a
dynamic, acceptable and an efficient person is expected
to be elected in this very important office, where, as
stated above, prudence, nonpartisan attitude, strong
common sense, wisdom and a vision aiming at attaining
the objective for greater national interest could be
reasonably expected. Moreover, an elected Chairperson
gets a sound footing in exercising his own
good-conscience and may sometimes rise to an occasion in
attaining a non-partisan view of a matter to be
considered by his committee. Election system would also
find capable and skilful Chairpersons of different
Committees from different political parties.
A
Chairperson being the key man in a Committee must be
cautious about committing himself too strongly in
matters hotly in dispute, and, as I have stated above,
mere silence from the side of the Chairperson,
sometimes, speaks a volume. Although it happened in the
second Parliament in 1979, and not in any committee
meeting, but I can't resist the temptation of citing an
incident. Mr. Asaduzzaman Khan, the leader of the
opposition in Bangladesh Parliament in one of his
speeches as in a debate seriously attacked Mr. Shah
Azizur Rahman, the then Prime Minister of Bangladesh
from Bangladesh Nationalist Party about his
ant-liberation role during the Liberation war in 1971
and passed a lot of scathing remarks. Mr. Shah Aziz, in
his reply, only said, "Al-hamdu Lillah",-means
all praise goes to Allah and then resumed his seat. By
implication he tried to mean that whatever he did in
1971 were by the will of Allah. The whole House was
taken aback. After his winding up speech, the House was
adjourned. To our amazement we found Mr. Shah Azizur
Rahman, entering into the room of the leader of the
opposition, I guess, for a cup of tea. Will Mr.
Asaduzzaman attack Mr. Shah Aziz so scathingly in
future?
This kind of Parliamentary acumen, skill and
wisdom is expected of the Chairperson of a Parliamentary
Committee Indeed if he continues in his office for a
reasonable period his expertise in his own field could
be profitably utilised inside the Committee, inside the
whole House and also in international seminars and
conferences. A Chairman of a standing committee of any
Ministry must equip himself with all up-to-date
information about all that have been happening in the
Ministry, about the Government policy in respect thereof
and must know how the bureaucrats are performing their
duties in attaining the objectives of this Ministry.
With brilliant performance of his duty he may influence
policy-making and may even turn his office as a
satisfactory alternative to Ministerial Office. With the
amendment of the Rules of procedure, the Ministers are
no longer Chairperson of any Committee but are a member
thereof which has turned every such committee into a
center of power and evidently, therefore, such a
Chairperson is very powerful indeed.
|
