The Role and Challenges of Parliament in Bangladesh’s Political Landscape
Despite its constitutional position, Parliament has become merely the “law-approving body.” It has failed to hold the executive organ of the state accountable and play the “consensus-building” role due to a dotted history of political turmoil, amendments to the constitution, and changes in political dimension and actors.
Peripheral Role in Policy Process
The role of Parliament in the policy process is peripheral, yet still inherently important. While issues are rarely discussed in Parliament and the committees, if they meet at all, are routinely ignored by the ministers, who curiously hold the position of chair, it remains the one forum for discussion and compromise universally recognized as legitimate by the Bangladesh public.
Lack of Involvement and Patronage Distribution
A consequence of the lack of involvement of members of parliament (MPs) in the policy and legislative process is a preoccupation for the procurement process or, more succinctly, the distribution of patronage.
Absence of Discourse and Deliberations
Major characteristics of a strong legislature such as discourse and deliberations are virtually absent in Bangladesh, and the external political context has largely determined the mode of parliamentary performances in post-1990s Bangladesh. Political intolerance, confrontational politics, and a “winner-take-all” attitude halted Bangladesh’s advancement on the path to a sustained democratic culture.
Failure to Deliver Key Tasks
Parliament has unfortunately failed to deliver the key tasks of representation, legislation, oversight of the executive, and conflict resolution, and thus has contributed insignificantly in promoting good governance.
Degradation of Parliamentary Discussions
Parliamentary discussions have lost content and essence and are characterized by filthy language, un-parliamentary appellation, and intemperate exchanges in parliamentary deliberations. Transparency International’s Bangladesh Parliament Watch Report 2009 (TIB 2009a) noted that the opposition party did not receive its due share in the parliamentary processes.
Prolonged Opposition Boycotts
Out of 237 questions put to the ministers, the shares of the ruling party and opposition members were 88.9% and 11.1%, respectively. The study also observed that undue eulogy of leaders was uttered 251 times, objectionable and direct criticisms of opposition were made 342 times, and irrelevant subjects were raised as many as 503 times. Prolonged and periodic walkouts by the opposition even on unnecessary grounds characterized the vulnerability and a low level of credible transactions of parliamentary sessions.
Lack of Focus on Pro-Poor Issues
Although the election manifestos of various parties made broad general statements concerning the poor and poverty, ironically pro-poor issues did not receive due attention in the parliamentary discussions and debates. There were hardly any deliberations on making demands or suggesting changes in the policy or process or proposing new laws/rules to address issues of the poor.
Conceptual Confusion Among MPs
A study further revealed that there is a “conceptual confusion” among MPs in understanding and or operationalizing pro-poor issues (Aminuzzaman 2004). The Parliament of Bangladesh has gradually degenerated into a mere instrument of regime maintenance and provides legitimacy to the ruling regime to govern.
Political Confrontation and Intolerance
Political culture in Bangladesh is thus characterized by confrontation and intolerance. The elections of 1996, 2001, and 2008 were preceded by a long opposition boycott of Parliament. The political parties are considered a safe abode for criminals, terrorists, and extortionists (TIB 2009b).
Decline in Quality of Parliament
Unfortunately, over the years, the quality of Parliament as the prime institution to maintain, uphold, and safeguard democratic principles has dwindled, and subsequently an alarming increase of an unholy alliance of money and muscle power in politics has taken place.
Influence of Wealth and Business Elites
The parliament is populated by MPs, many of whom have allegedly made financial “investments” in their nomination by their party. It appears that the wealth of candidates is a more important factor in determining electoral nomination and success than local credibility and their ability and willingness to represent the interests of constituents. The political system has been ruined by a new process of “criminalization and commercialization” of politics.
Role of Business Elites and Patronage Politics
Political party funds are also collected directly from leading businessmen and industrialists. Such funds are often donated out of a vested interest in anticipation of favors in return and are often collected in the form of extortion. Furthermore, the business elites are gradually taking control of Parliament. In the current ninth Parliament, 63%, or 188 MPs out of total of 345 including 45 lawmakers elected to reserved seats for women are businesspersons.
Hegemonic Control and Public Resources
The ruling parties in Bangladesh have been almost always engaged in establishing their hegemonic control over the use of public resources to further their partisan interests under the facade of public interest. The public policy-making process is thus characterized “as the outcome of incentives created by patronage politics as opposed to the compulsion for the government to play an effective developmental role.”
Weak Democratic Transformation and Party Ideologies
Political parties are also allies to weak and poor agents of democratic transformation. Party programs and ideologies seldom mobilize voters during elections. All major parties bank on a populist approach of rhetoric, symbolism, and sentiments as the major instruments for mobilizing voters.
Impact of Hartal and Centralized Decision-Making
A favorite weapon to harass a sitting government is hartal, a general strike that paralyzes most economic activities, especially transport, sometimes for days. Bangladesh is further characterized by high levels of competition between major parties, the absence of intraparty democracy, highly centralized decision-making, and personalization of internal party structures. These hurt the overall governance of the country.
