Most people, not even the lawmakers concerned, are unlikely to dispute the findings of an updated study by the TIB (Transparency International, Bangladesh), about the ineffectiveness of the parliamentary committees. The lawmakers and the government, however, might express reservations about what has been observed in the research study of the TIB about the use of political influence and the propensity among a few members of the committees to promote their own individual interests, financial or otherwise. But the essence of the findings of the study is that the House committees have been ineffective.
The standing committees are supposed to be the 'eyes' and 'ears' of parliament under the Westminster system of government. They, in fact, act as watchdogs in the case of their respective ministries and safeguard public interests. Parliament under the system is a forum that would scrutinise the activities of the executive and present before the government the issues of public interest. Besides, the committees are meant to scrutinise public policies that concern the interests of the people and the activities of the administration. In a nutshell, the committees represent parliament and parliament the people.
Unfortunately, though Bangladesh boasts of introducing the Westminster system with a mono-cameral parliament, the parliamentary committees, being mere 'talk-shops,' could never deliver anything substantive. The situation, however, has not been specific to any particular government. The country's constitution allows concentration of so much power in one individual who heads the government that parliament and its committees do have little to do, barring framing laws. The process of holding the government accountable through the parliamentary committees is, thus, absent here. Even the implementation of decisions taken by the parliamentary committees is dependent on the sweet will of the relevant ministries.
In such a situation, it would not be surprising at all if a section of members of the parliamentary bodies try to promote their own interests by using political influence. The House Committees that are purported to ensuring transparency in the operations of the government, much like the case with many other countries practising parliamentary system of governance, are, according to the findings of the TIB study, involved here in non-transparent activities. The members of a few committees are reportedly engaged in businesses that fall under the purview of the ministries that they are overseeing. The TIB study tried to say that the members concerned got themselves included in those committees with an ill motive to promote their own business interests.
However, the state of parliamentary committees in this country as far as their powers and functions are concerned is very much in line with the situation in other national institutions. No government in the country's post-Independence history has meant business in promoting and ensuring transparency and accountability at all relevant levels. Leaders, political or otherwise, while being at the helm of the statecraft, promised to do their best to make their governments transparent and accountable. But, in reality, they hardly did anything substantive to redeem their pledges. Against this backdrop, there is no strong reason at this stage under the given circumstances for the nation to be hopeful about promoting accountability and transparency of governance, at least, in the near future.
Effectiveness of parliamentary committees
FE Team | Published: August 12, 2015 00:00:00 | Updated: November 30, 2026 06:01:00
Share if you like