|
The Daily Star, Bangladesh
July 22,
2003
Summary:
Opinion article suggests that Bangladesh���s Parliament suffers from
corruption and self-interest. Advocates various structural reforms,
including the use of a full representation (proportional
representation) system to replace the current plurality system.
http://www.thedailystar.net/2003/07/22/d30722150188.htm The Daily Star, Bangladesh
Currents and crosscurrents
Parliamentary reforms:
Laws for lawmakers are the crying need
By M. M. Rezaul
Karim
July
22, 2003 Give alms to the beggar, money to the poor, service to the
needy, health to the sick, knowledge to the ignorant, education to
the children and so on and so forth. These are axiomatic truth and
acceptable duty for mankind. There is, however, a common element in
all these --- one set of people give and another set receive. But
what happens if the donors themselves are the recipients, and they
give themselves plenty of perks, remuneration and privileges? This
happens to legislators of our and, for that matter, any other
parliament. When the issue of enhancing their material benefits and
privileges are concerned, some of our parliamentarians become most
vocal, prompt and ideal lawmakers. The parliament recently made laws
and gave its members and also government Ministers enhanced
remuneration, living allowances, house rent, travel allowances, etc.
Of course, the beneficiaries had so long received inadequate
benefits as members of this noble profession. If the
newly-introduced measures increase their efficiency and enable them
to perform functions better, it is not only well and good but most
desirable. But, is this the case? Will it improve their service,
both in quality and quantity? Some wonder. Or, will these impart
them greater arrogance of power? One must also take into account the
impoverished country of ours which have limited resources that call
for optimum utilization among competing needs. We have, indeed,
many illustrious members in the parliament who are sagacious and
endowed with rich and varied experience. People have, or at least
should have, great respect for members of the legislature who are
their elected representatives. The latter are not only supposed to
safeguard and promote interests of their constituents, but assist
the government by formulating policy and providing guidance for good
governance through debate and enactment of law. But how well do they
carry out these bounden duties? It is a pity that many of them
appear non-serious about the need to be present in the parliament
promptly and regularly. It is most unfortunate that quorum in
parliamentary sessions take long to form, sometimes longer than an
hour. Do these members consider that once they are elected, their
responsibility in attending the parliament regularly is over? Are
their duties towards their constituents being carried out with
fairness, justice and impartiality? These are some of the questions
that agitate minds of the common people. Let us take even a cursory
look at our legislators. The majority of them are wealthy, mostly
industrialists and business people. During the British regime and
for some considerable period thereafter politicians used to be drawn
mostly from among the ranks of lawyers, litterateurs, insolvent
patriots, hereditary landlords and others. But why has there been a
qualitative change? Because, the principal criteria now for
nominating a candidate by a political party is his or her ability or
prospect of winning the election. The question of commitment to the
ideals, dedication to party programs, quality and duration of the
service rendered to the party etc. are relegated to a secondary
position. Now to win election one needs money and muscle power. If
you have money, or can procure it from other sources, muscle can be
arranged easily. This has regrettably been the characteristics of
our politics for the past two decades at least and is widely known
to people, much to their chagrin. Those who spend that much money
for election, they obviously do so with the hope of making good that
loss and of repaying the so-called loans from the willing investors.
But, members of parliament are provided with too modest means to do
so. Yet, they do fulfill their obligations in some way or other and
most often accomplish much more. Do they do so by honest means? A
big question. Both the present and the previous government sought
and obtained lists of property and assets of Ministers and members
of parliament. But no such statement was submitted when they left
office. This should have been done. And also, as practiced in many
countries, such statements should have been made public so that
people would have full knowledge of the legitimate income of such
leaders. This would, evidently, bridle the greed and corruption of
many such people. People do not want their parliamentary
representatives to be deeply engrossed with whatever they are not
supposed to do. They are normally provided with funds for
development in their constituency. They must use these funds in a
fair, just and equitable manner. But do they actually do that,
except some honorable members. The legislation made by the
legislators some years ago, giving the latter the unusual and highly
substantial perk of a duty free vehicle, made the office of a member
of parliament dangerously more lucrative. Under these circumstances,
one method of holding a check on their alleged unlawful income is to
make public their statements of income and assets and to check those
against their subsequent gains. Also, a sizable section of members
use their sudden elevation of social status as well as newly
acquired administrative and financial power to enjoy authority
beyond its limits by bullying local administration. They, in turn,
get involved with cadres, who tarnish the image of their respective
political parties by way of indulging in unlawful activities. The
opposition members of the parliament cannot, however, exercise undue
influence on local administration, for obvious reasons. But they
seek to maintain their traditional cadres, though with
understandable difficulties. The government is generally aware of
the misuse of power and unlawful activities of political leaders,
but unfortunately fails to implement the decision to curb them.
Pakistan government added last year some conditions to the
eligibility of parliamentary candidates. The candidates must have a
minimum educational qualification of a bachelor's degree and must
show evidence of clearance of their utility charges. In Bangladesh,
we impose condition on clearance of bank loans or its installment
payments. But, such restrictions can address only the periphery of
the problems. Only a change of mindset and social sanctions appear
imperative to increase the nature and standard of service of the
parliamentarians. One may also note that during the past two decades
there have been successive changes of government, because the party
in power generally becomes unpopular due mostly to the excesses
committed by their leaders or cronies. This is a lesson to learn for
the major political parties, especially the ruling party. A strict
control over the party stalwarts and legislators, who tarnish the
image of the party, would make the party popular and increase its
chances of returning to power. Many countries have bicameral
legislatures wherein some or all members of the Upper House are
nominated. Nominated members generally are highly distinguished
citizens drawn from different sectors of the society who are either
unwilling or unable to contest in elections. They represent that
section of legislators, who exercise check and balance on the Lower
House and decide issues mostly on merit than merely on political
considerations. But Bangladesh is not a Federal State and has no
constituent provinces and, therefore, can not have a bicameral
legislature, at least for the time being. An institutional reform,
however, can be undertaken by way of introducing the system of
proportional representation in electing legislators. In contrast to
the existing British Westminster style of single constituency, under
the proportional representation system several members are elected
in one constituency, on the basis of highest number of votes
received proportionately among the candidates of contesting
political parties. The advantage of this system lies in the fact
that the candidates contest not as individuals but collectively for
all their party candidates together in one constituency. In that
event, an individual candidate does not have to work only for
himself and, therefore, would deter him or her from using undue
money and muscle power. There may be a combination of single
constituency and proportional representation to ensure better human
materials in the legislature, like in many developing and developed
countries. Another issue that deserves attention of the general
public is the tenure of our parliament which is now 5 years. Since
1991, all the political parties, which lost elections, alleged, in
varying degrees, that the elections had been unfair and heavily
rigged. Though in most cases they later reconciled, but soon started
violent movement to topple the government before the end of its
tenure. Consequently, demonstrations, hartals and other methods
which generally turned violent were resorted to, thereby creating
serious political instability, loss of production, thwarting
development activities and shying away investment and
industrialization. Besides, such movement hindered progress of
establishing the desired democratic system and tradition. A reduced
tenure of the parliament to 4 years may, therefore, be viewed as a
way to a reduced propensity for a movement directed to topple the
government prematurely. Instead, the opposition parties would
hopefully devote themselves more to propagate and campaign for
winning the next election. If the American President can be elected
only for a 4 year term and also legislatures of many countries, our
parliament can also be elected for the same duration. In politics,
nothing is sacrosanct and certainly not the tenure of the
parliament, if this serves national interests and promotes
democratic values better. M.M.Rezaul Karim, a former Ambassador, is
a member of BNP's Advisory Council. |
