|
In
recent years voters all over the world have indicated
their concerns over the exercise of more powers by the
executive and the continuously declining role of the
legislatures over the government, the budget making
process, monitoring and overall reviews.
The situation has assumed such proportions that
scholars have started calling the Parliamentary System
as “Prime Ministerial Dictatorship.” However,
countries practicing the Parliamentary system have shown
their eagerness to strengthen their Parliaments, and in
the process, also the executive wing of the State.
As a result, the Executive-Legislature relations
are attracting more and more attention of scholars and
practitioners of democracy alike.
One such effort is the move to strike a balance
between the two wings through the Parliamentary
Committee System.
There
exists a broad agreement that all over the world
including the Western Democracies, the United States of
America has the strongest Committee System.
Congressmen in USA were concerned over the
concentration of vast powers in the President.
This concern led to the enactment of the
Reorganization Act of 1946.
In the 1970s the Committees of the Senate and the
House of Representatives were reorganized and a new
budget committee was formed. In the Commonwealth
countries that have adopted the Parliamentary form, like
England, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and India,
efforts have been going on for decades to strengthen the
system. In
spite of their having a strong party system, there still
are obstacles in the way of further developing the
system. In
fact, Government does not want the committees to become
the centre of decision-making or a competing source of
power.
As such legislative – executive
relationship has become more important for the scholars
and the practitioners. It is necessary to make the
institution more effective and operative, as proceedings
at the plenary level tend to be open, adversial and
directed to the public. At the plenary sessions one sees
parties getting involved in debates and struggles for
electoral advantage. Debates under care strong
ideological conflicts. Floor debates underscore mere
public relations exercises. On some occasions the
debates aim at scoring debating points and are full of
rhetoric, party propaganda and misrepresentations. They
are pure entertainment occasions. Floor debates lead to
decisions by majority vote. But discussions are brief
and often without substance. There, legislators speak
directly to the people in order to create public opinion
with an eye on the next elections. Debates are often
hot, furious and create a lot of heat in the chamber.
Sometimes it goes as far as creating war-like situations
followed by prolonged walkouts and boycotts also. In
this situation parliamentary leaders speak with
political motives rather than running the business of
the House.
At
the general level our constitution sets out broadly
principles of government, directly or indirectly. It
also defines political structure, institutions and the
principle of separation of power. We follow the
Westminster type of parliamentary system. Although the
separation of powers is clearly mentioned in our
constitution but the issue of separation of executive
from the legislature is not there. This absence leads to
a situation where the executive tries to operate and
lead the legislature and the typical consequence is
strong executive and weak legislature. In India and
Japan the same system operates. The Council of Ministers
with the Prime Minister as its head controls both the
government and the legislature. More specifically,
through its majority the government controls legislation
and financial activities. In Japan the Diet and in other
Asian countries the Parliament is supposed to be the
highest organ of power and the sole law making organ
also. But the reality is otherwise.
The
enormous range and complexity of administrative action
of a modern government make it almost impossible for the
legislature to adequately supervise the executive. The
executive has vast and highly sophisticated
administrative machinery and organisation manned by
experts, specialists and civil servants. While, by its
very nature, parliamentary supervision of administration
cannot be viewed as supervision by an external body in
the strict sense of the term, nevertheless, in order to
make parliamentary surveillance not only effective but
also meaningful Parliament needs more machinery of its
own. This, among other things, parliament seeks to
achieve through the parliamentary committees through
which experience and expert opinions can guide and
supervise the government.
The
need for parliamentary committee arises from several
factors such as review of administrative actions and
examination of complicated legislative proposals by
experts, which is not possible in plenary sessions
attended by large number of members. The workload of
modern parliaments is enormous and as such there is
little time for detailed investigations or discussion on
every matter in the floor. But in the calmer and
non-partisan atmosphere of the committees it is possible
to get things done, accommodating different views and
applying the give-and-take principle. Moreover, there,
back benchers can also effectively participate.
Committees act as valuable learning grounds for
ministers and presiding officers. It also provides
useful forum for the utilisation of experience and
ability that would otherwise not be available.
Bangladesh
is unique among the SAARC countries and in Asia having a
full and direct commitment of the constitution to a
system of committees in the legislature. I, as one of
the draftsmen and framer of the constitution, want to
assert emphatically that our constitution does not allow
parliaments without committees in respect of law making,
governance, investigating process and financial
accountability. In fact the constitutional legitimacy
that has been given to our committees has been an
important factor in the development of, in our
estimation, the second strongest committee system next
to the Unites States only. The Parliamentary provision
of the institution requires that every bill must be
examined by a committee before the house debates it.
Article 76 our constitution provides for the
constitution of Public Accounts Committee and Privileges
Committee to ensure accountability and privileges of the
members. Other committees may also be formed as per the
Rules of Procedure. Committees have been given powers
not only to examine draft bills but also other
legislative proposals. They can review enforcement of
laws and propose measures for such enforcement in
relation to any matter referred to it by parliament as a
matter of public importance. They can investigate into
the activities of a ministry and may require it to
furnish, through an authorized representative, relevant
information and answer questions, orally or in writing,
perform any other function assigned to it by the
parliament. Unfortunately, even 27 years after the
passage of this constitution these measures have not
taken roots because of the reluctance of the executives
to make the committees really effective and meaningful.
In the Rules of Procedure there are provisions for other
committees, which can be classified into three broad
categories.
In conclusion we can say that if in
the new millenium the Parliamentary system is to play
its proper role and in order to institutionalize the
multi-party system itself, Parliamentarians should be
allowed to speak with fewer interruptions and with a
strong and dedicated Parliamentary orientation. The
importance of strengthening the Parliament as an
institution cannot be overemphasized in our modern
world, where the democracy of the masses has emerged as
one of the world’s political wonders.
The modern Parliament is not a Parliament of the
Royal Counsel of medieval times, neither of the Feudal
Baronage of the 15th century, nor of the 16th
century monarchies, nor of the Gentry of the 17th
century, nor of the 18th century aristocracy,
and neither is it the Parliament of the 19th
century plutocracies. Parliament should be taken as
serious business in the present century, something that
is not a part-time job.
It should convene at 10 a.m. and should continue
till late at night until it has been able to finish the
business of the day.
All policy decisions of the Government should be
discussed on the Floor especially the pre-budget
discussions to ensure fiscal accountability.
Partisan question and answer time should be
discouraged by all, especially by the members of the
Treasury Bench. The
Ministers should also attend the Parliament after having
done the necessary homework, and deal with his
colleagues so as to uphold the respect of his fellow
elected representative.
It must be remembered that opposition in the
streets is not the same as the opposition on the House
Floor. Agitation
in the streets cannot co-habit in the same premises.
The heat that is generated in the Plenary
sessions may be let off in the cooling chambers of the
Committees, which can act as cathartic or a safety zone
to reduce tensions and promote a sense of reassurance
amongst the representatives of the people.
Last but not the least, a time has come where MPs
should be allowed to speak out their mind unhindered and
on the basis of consensus.
Free and animated discussions should take place
and a consensus Speaker should be elected in order to
institutionalise this Parliamentary system.
|
