Transparency Inter-national, Bangladesh (TIB) in its report released last week has highlighted some of the weaknesses of parliamentary democracy in the country. What has been published is not revealing, people are aware of it; TIB has only articulated the weaknesses with irrefutable data.
TIB in its report pointed out that a parliament elected through the participation of major political parties, congruent to democratic practices, is not in existence now. It also mentioned that parliament lacks a genuine opposition party within the House. The opposition party in parliament exists only in name. Because of being a partner in cabinet, the opposition party would not be able to play a meaningful role in parliament. With regard to the ninth parliament, the report estimated that due to lack of quorum over 222 hours' time was lost at the expense of Tk 1.04 billion (104 crores). Of the total time available to parliament only 8.2 per cent time was utilised in making legislation as compared to 55 per cent in the United Kingdom and 53 per cent in India. Some of the important bills were passed by parliament following discussions lasting no more than four minutes. Parliament took little over four hours in passing the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution. This was the longest legislative deliberation of the last parliament.
It is well known that democracy in Bangladesh lasted no more than three years beginning from 1972. The Fourth Amendment was passed in January 1975 establishing one-party system in the country. That marked the end of democracy in Bangladesh. Three years later, though multi-party political system was restored and a parliament was elected in 1979 the experiment was short-lived. Following the assassination of President Ziaur Rahman in 1981 a new president was elected by popular votes but he was removed by the head of the army within six months. A quasi-military government ruled the country for nearly nine years. During these nine years the democratic institutions, including the political parties, were systematically fragmented by the military regime with the connivance of power-mongering renegade politicians. Though parliamentary democracy was restored in 1991 the conduct of the politicians and the political parties were found incompatible with lodestars of democracy. The verdict of the people was never respected by the opposition party in parliament and parliamentary sessions were boycotted for no valid reasons. The ruling party, on the other hand, failed to take parliament seriously and hardly tabled the important bilateral treaties in the House. The opposition party adopted a practice of submitting counter-budget proposal outside parliament in recent years, a practice unheard of in any democratic society.
TIB reported that the last parliament had 19 sessions lasting for 418 working days during its five-year term and the opposition party attended parliament sessions only for 76 days. What a dismal performance of the people's representatives! The conduct of the opposition party in the previous parliaments were not encouraging either. The rate of attendance by the opposition members in parliament since 1991 varied from 42 to 66 per cent, plummeted to 18 per cent in the ninth parliament. The lawmakers belonging to the treasury bench found it more lucrative to oversee their private business than attending parliament sessions. Viewed in this context, the TIB report has rightly captured the behaviour of the lawmakers and confirmed the popular impression that politics has gone to the control of the business community.
DISCONCERTING REACTION: The reactions from the government functionaries to the TIB report are indeed disconcerting. The Law Minister questioned the validity of the "prescriptions" of the TIB, termed it as biased and therefore unacceptable. The minister however did not, however, challenge any of the findings of the report. Other heavyweights in the ruling party/coalition castigated TIB for making advocacy in favour of the undemocratic forces in the country and demanded investigation of the sources of funding of agencies like TIB and SHUJON.
TIB has made certain recommendations and it is within its rights to do so, particularly in an environment when there is no effective opposition party in parliament and the major opposition party outside the parliament has been unable to function due to several constraints. This vacuum in the political arena has created a space for the TIB to make recommendations. It doesn't need any approval from any quarter to publish its findings.
The government can at any time investigate the sources of funding of any agency operating in the country, provided there is no witch-hunting. But prior to launching investigation of funding sources of TIB and SHUJON would it not be fair to look into the huge amount of properties the lawmakers belonging to the ruling coalition have amassed during the recent years? By their own submissions to the Election Commission many lawmakers have listed the wealth accumulated in recent years which surprised people in general. People would welcome judicial enquiry of the illegally acquired wealth by anybody regardless of party affiliation.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Branding the TIB report as prejudicial to government and an invitation to non-democratic forces to destabilise the government reinforces the popular impression that the government is averse to any suggestion to strengthen democracy and promote good governance. Since the TIB report focused on the past five years, it has captured the malfunctioning of democracy, absence of good governance, performance of the ruling party as well as of the opposition party in parliament. Since the ruling party has been a dominant force, responsibility for correcting the malaise falls more on its shoulder.
TIB has made 21 points recommendations in order to combat the malfunctioning of the democratic system in the country. The recommendations include arranging referendum prior to bringing any amendment to the Constitution, retrenchment of threshold of absence of lawmakers to 30 days, compulsory discussion of bilateral agreements in parliament prior to ratification and holding parliamentary election with the participation of major political parties.
The demand for parliamentary election is not new, even the government functionaries repeatedly pledged, prior to and following the January 05 election, that they would be open to discussion about the eleventh parliament, apparently realising that the last election utterly failed to meet legitimacy test. The international community had joined the civil society in demanding fresh parliamentary election under a mechanism that would enable participation of major political parties. By including the issue of fresh election in its recommendations TIB has definitely not invented wheels nor invited undemocratic forces. It has, on the contrary, voiced a popular demand essential for restoration of democracy in the country.
It has been widely acknowledged that the January 05 election has not provided a solution to our political crisis. Its legitimacy has been questioned at home and abroad. The image of the country has also been dented. Nevertheless, the election has given a breathing space and the government should have seized the opportunity to evolve a strategy that would pave the way to return to a pluralistic polity. We have moved very close to "one-party system" which would not augur well for the country. The outcome of the three phases of upazila elections signals that people are no longer solidly behind the government. They would welcome a change. In this backdrop the TIB recommendations could very well provide a much-needed agenda for a broad-based dialogue. The ruling party should form a committee comprising the representatives of major political parties and the civil society to scrutinise TIB recommendations and formulate a strategy to return to multi-party democratic system. Branding a neutral opinion as foreign-inspired with ulterior motive deepens the mistrusts in society and compounds the difficulty in evolving an exit strategy from the crisis the nation has fallen into. The absence of opposition party inside and outside parliament is an ominous signal for political stability.
The author is a former official of the United Nations.
darahman.chowdhury@
hotmail.com
TIB report: An agenda for a broad-based dialogue
Abdur Rahman Chowdhury from Virginia, USA | Published: March 24, 2014 00:00:00 | Updated: November 30, 2026 06:01:00
Share if you like