Is parliamentary democracy working in Bangladesh?

Published in The Daily Independent, August 29, 2009

BNP's General Secretary Khandker Delwar Hossain, himself not a Member of Parliament, has hinted that his party may continue to stay away from the Parliament when it meets for the next session. His hint is not unexpected; nor is anyone expecting any better news from him. He has used the same line that the opposition has been using as a reason for not attending the parliament since we established parliamentary democracy in 1991 after the fall of Ershad's decade long dictatorship, that the party in power has not created the conditions necessary for the opposition to attend the parliament.

Both the mainstream parties that have, while in the opposition, made this excuse for staying out of Parliament. But neither bothered to create the environment they have demanded, while in power.

In the last two terms, the BNP and the AL have introduced the issue of front row sitting as an additional excuse to stay out of the parliament. During the last BNP government, the AL abstained from attending the Parliament because they demanded and did not get what they considered was a fair number of front seats in the parliament. This time, the AL has used the same principle used on it by the BNP to deny the latter the number of seats they have demanded. The "sovereign parliament" thus remains deadlocked on an issue that can only be described as trivial.
The people are both frustrated and disappointed by the way the AL and the BNP have used trivial excuses to stay out of the parliament. The excuses they make while in the opposition and the total indifference they show to these excuses while in power raise serious doubt whether parliamentary democracy can work in Bangladesh. They have failed to acknowledge that in a parliamentary system of government, the presence of the opposition in parliament is fundamental to the system.
The number of seats that the officially designated opposition has in the parliament does not make its role any less important in the context of parliamentary democracy. The party in power needs the opposition to make parliament sovereign and ensure parliamentary democracy. The absence of an opposition is in fact incomprehensible in a parliamentary democracy.

In this instance, the reason that is keeping the BNP out of the current parliament and the one that had kept the AL out in the last parliament rejects the principles upon which a parliamentary democracy is established.
Denying seats to the Opposition in the front row or giving it on basis of seats won in the elections demonstrates a mindset in both the BNP and the AL of denying the opposition an important role in the affairs of the parliament. In other words, the two parties have demonstrated, while in power, a preference for humiliating the opposition, thus refusing to accept the fact that in a parliamentary democracy, an opposition has almost as important a role to play as the party in power.
In the context of both the BNP and the AL, the issue of seating arrangement that now holds the Parliament hostage as it had held in the BNP's term of office is difficult to comprehend.

In 2001, the BNP had won the elections with two-thirds majority and acceding to the AL's request for a few additional seats in the front row should have been accepted in good grace. This time the AL has won with a greater majority than the BNP and denying the BNP the extra seats on the plea that the latter did the same is not even common sense for this has provided the BNP an excuse to stay out of parliament. In looking deeper into the psychology of the two parties with regards to the seat issue, one can reasonably conclude that neither believes seriously in the role of an opposition in a parliamentary democracy.
The spirit of democracy in general and parliamentary democracy in particular rests on compromise that the two mainstream parties have sadly failed to demonstrate. As a consequence, our parliament has failed to emerge as a symbol of authority; of sovereignty.

The parliamentary committees that are the arms of the parliament for exercising that sovereignty have also failed to emerge as powerful institutions. The functions of these committees are given a great deal of media coverage but in the absence of a functional and vibrant parliament, the work of the parliamentary committees does not have the necessary clout to make the executive branch pay much attention to their work.

The two mainstream parties have thus between them made the parliament a lame duck institution instead of a sovereign one. In the present term, the AL government has introduced some new elements in executive governance that further undermines the role and effectiveness of the parliament. In at least one Ministry, it has placed an Adviser with full rank of a Minister with a Member of Parliament playing second fiddle to him as a state Minister. It has included seven Advisers who are virtually super ministers in a Cabinet where the overwhelming majority of the members are first timers with little or no experience and even less confidence.

In effect, the nature of politics of the two mainstream parties have ensured that although we have re-introduced parliamentary democracy following the fall of Ershad, our Prime Ministers have preferred to exercise executive power like him, without the need of the opposition. There is a further element here that does not help a parliamentary system establish itself in Bangladesh. When people vote for either of the two mainstream parties, they in fact vote for either Sheikh Hasina or Khaleda Zia just like voters vote in a presidential system of government. Thus when either party wins, its leader assumes power and influence that are hardly conducive to a parliamentary system where a Prime Minister in theory is supposed to be "the first among equals.

The leader of the party that wins not just exercises power like a President; she behaves like one too. The absence of opposition helps her to do so while an ever-compliant President ensures nothing to the contrary. In fact, the parliamentary system has been tailored by the BNP and the AL to allow the Prime Minister to enjoy executive power as a President without the disadvantage of term limitation of a presidential system.

In Bangladesh, we have established one of the best systems of election for the people to elect the government of their choice. In that sense, we have democracy. But once we send our party of choice to form the government, they end up exercising power that cannot be described as democratic. Although our two parties are nemesis to each other, the Awami League and the BNP are partners in not allowing the parliament to be sovereign, instead allowing the executive led by the Prime Minister to exercise power arbitrarily by staying out of it when in the opposition.
Thus the nature of politics, mindset of the leaders and other objective conditions are not conducive to a parliamentary system of government in Bangladesh. Unless there is a sea change in the mindset with which the two mainstream parties conduct politics, the parliamentary system that we have will be one in theory only; in practice it will continue to be more presidential than a presidential system of government. In being so, the country runs the risk of power being exercised at the executive level arbitrarily because the two parties between them have made the "watchdog" of the people toothless in keeping the executive accountable.