Parliamentary watchdogs dabble in irrelevant matters
Saturday, 19 December 2009
Enayet Rasul Bhuiyan
Parliamentary committees in mature democracies serve the purpose very well of making government's functionaries accountable for their lapses, for their misuse of authority or for corruption. For example, in the USA, the powerful committees of the Senate can summon powerful figures in the government and the latter are only too obliged to respond to the summons and divulge whatever information is demanded from them. The Senate's committee--then-- can censure or rebuke any respondent to its calls for any of the above ills. The committees can send their recommendations to the highest level of the government for taking penal or remedial measures against the ones duly charged. Coming from the respected committees, the suggestions are taken up promptly by the highest seat of power and acted upon quickly and effectively. This has become like a custom in the United States and the functioning of the parliamentary committees there with full flair have led to members of the government taking care not to be caught on the wrong foot. Undoubtedly, the same has helped the cause of good governance in that country.
Many times and from many forums similar role of parliamentary committees have been suggested for Bangladesh to achieve the vital goals of making government accountable and transparent. But after the transition to what were seen to be relatively credible parliaments following free and fair election from the nineties, the longing for these committees intensified from a notion that these could become effective tools to watch over governmental activities and make the same more responsible and corruption free. But the parliamentary committees in several parliaments in that period suffered from untimely formation. The committees were formed sometimes very late so that for the greater part of their tenures, the governments at that time were spared any supervision of their activities. Parliamentary committees in the past were also filled preponderantly with ruling party members that undermined their potential of reviewing the activities of their loyalists in government. Only under the present parliament the committees were formed quickly and representatives from the opposition also increased in them. Thus, the expectation also rose about their improved performance . But these hopes must have frayed a great deal from the manner these bodies are operating.
First of all, the parliamentary committees are seen straying away from what should be ideally their objectives under all circumstances : to keep the government of the day under a watch and on the correct path through various oversight activities. But unfortunately, the committees are noted to be more indulging in witch hunt type of activities, accusing rabidly sometimes distinguished persons of past governments for corruption and objectionable exercise of powers without the credible proof to support such accusations . Thus, a parliamentary committee recently informed the press that it found evidences of serious corruption against a former adviser of the caretaker government although the accused person drew attention to the fact that the committee should concentrate on scrutinizing the activities of current high-ups in the government to be consistent with its jurisdiction and that for investigating corruption activities of others there are bodies such as the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC). Later the ACC investigated the charges made against the adviser by the parliamentary committee and declared the same to be baseless. Another distinguished adviser of the caretaker government was similarly charged by another parliamentary committee and in response the former adviser challenged the committee to give acceptable proof in support of its charges . The challenge was noted responded or could not be responded by the committee that only established this former adviser's stand that the committee under the influence of one of his close relatives was maliciously spreading false stories against him. Other such cases in relation to the committees can be mentioned. The same only go to prove that the committees have detracted from what ought to be their main goals and are being utilized as instruments to settle scores with political rivals, to avenge for tough steps taken rightly or wrongly against their members by the immediate past government. But in the process the committees are only helping the process of spreading misinformation or tendentious or slanderous accounts against otherwise innocent individuals who have every reason to be stung by the unjustified impingement on their honours and image.
Therefore, it is high time that the present manner of activities of the parliamentary committees is taken note of from the highest levels of the ruling party followed by the taking of appropriate corrective measures.
Parliamentary committees in mature democracies serve the purpose very well of making government's functionaries accountable for their lapses, for their misuse of authority or for corruption. For example, in the USA, the powerful committees of the Senate can summon powerful figures in the government and the latter are only too obliged to respond to the summons and divulge whatever information is demanded from them. The Senate's committee--then-- can censure or rebuke any respondent to its calls for any of the above ills. The committees can send their recommendations to the highest level of the government for taking penal or remedial measures against the ones duly charged. Coming from the respected committees, the suggestions are taken up promptly by the highest seat of power and acted upon quickly and effectively. This has become like a custom in the United States and the functioning of the parliamentary committees there with full flair have led to members of the government taking care not to be caught on the wrong foot. Undoubtedly, the same has helped the cause of good governance in that country.
Many times and from many forums similar role of parliamentary committees have been suggested for Bangladesh to achieve the vital goals of making government accountable and transparent. But after the transition to what were seen to be relatively credible parliaments following free and fair election from the nineties, the longing for these committees intensified from a notion that these could become effective tools to watch over governmental activities and make the same more responsible and corruption free. But the parliamentary committees in several parliaments in that period suffered from untimely formation. The committees were formed sometimes very late so that for the greater part of their tenures, the governments at that time were spared any supervision of their activities. Parliamentary committees in the past were also filled preponderantly with ruling party members that undermined their potential of reviewing the activities of their loyalists in government. Only under the present parliament the committees were formed quickly and representatives from the opposition also increased in them. Thus, the expectation also rose about their improved performance . But these hopes must have frayed a great deal from the manner these bodies are operating.
First of all, the parliamentary committees are seen straying away from what should be ideally their objectives under all circumstances : to keep the government of the day under a watch and on the correct path through various oversight activities. But unfortunately, the committees are noted to be more indulging in witch hunt type of activities, accusing rabidly sometimes distinguished persons of past governments for corruption and objectionable exercise of powers without the credible proof to support such accusations . Thus, a parliamentary committee recently informed the press that it found evidences of serious corruption against a former adviser of the caretaker government although the accused person drew attention to the fact that the committee should concentrate on scrutinizing the activities of current high-ups in the government to be consistent with its jurisdiction and that for investigating corruption activities of others there are bodies such as the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC). Later the ACC investigated the charges made against the adviser by the parliamentary committee and declared the same to be baseless. Another distinguished adviser of the caretaker government was similarly charged by another parliamentary committee and in response the former adviser challenged the committee to give acceptable proof in support of its charges . The challenge was noted responded or could not be responded by the committee that only established this former adviser's stand that the committee under the influence of one of his close relatives was maliciously spreading false stories against him. Other such cases in relation to the committees can be mentioned. The same only go to prove that the committees have detracted from what ought to be their main goals and are being utilized as instruments to settle scores with political rivals, to avenge for tough steps taken rightly or wrongly against their members by the immediate past government. But in the process the committees are only helping the process of spreading misinformation or tendentious or slanderous accounts against otherwise innocent individuals who have every reason to be stung by the unjustified impingement on their honours and image.
Therefore, it is high time that the present manner of activities of the parliamentary committees is taken note of from the highest levels of the ruling party followed by the taking of appropriate corrective measures.