Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Editorial «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

The Resident Coordinator of the United Nations in Bangladesh [who is also the Resident Representative of the UNDP], Mr. Jorgen Lissner, deserves our sincere thanks for his bold observations the other day at a discussion meeting on ‘Leadership and Development’ co-sponsored by the Jatiyo Sangshad and the UNDP; but simultaneously many people are appalled at the remarks of the Honourable Speaker, Barrister Zamiruddin Sircar, who is not only a senior parliamentarian [being a veteran of five parliaments so far], but is also a senior lawyer of our Supreme Court. In fact, what Barrister Sircar said that day in his speech was at best a child’s remark, if I am allowed to say so. He is reported to have emphatically said in the discussion meeting that Article 70 of our constitution “was framed after much thought to ensure stability and strengthen parliamentary democracy.” Pray, Sir, what about those countries where there is no such blessed thing as [our] Article 70? Do the people in those countries suffer from spells of instability or are they left with a weak parliamentary democracy or both? As a matter of fact, the Honourable Speaker, despite being a reputed lawyer, has unnecessarily tried to defend something which is not only indefensible ab initio, but also smacks of the most undemocratic provisions that any constitutional expert can brag of. Conversely, there could not have been any better illustration [of the article under reference] than what has been described by the UN Coordinator Lissner, when he termed Article 70 as “a handcuff for the MPs.” 
   However, in order to have a clear and better insight of the subject itself, let us see what Article 70 of our constitution has to say after all: 70[1] “A person elected a Member of Parliament at an election at which he was nominated as candidate by a political party shall vacate his seat if he resigns from that party or votes in Parliament against that party.”
   Explanation: “If a Member of Parliament (a) being present in Parliament abstains from voting, or (b) absents himself from any sitting of Parliament, ignoring the direction of the party which nominated him at the election as candidate not to do so, he shall be deemed to have voted against that party.”
   Almost all of us believe that under the multi-party democratic system, a stable government is a must, and that stability can be achieved only when a favourable socio-political order prevails and also by adhering to certain rules and effective legal safeguards that can stem from the constitution itself. Hence our founding fathers [and framers of our constitution], keeping very much in mind the sordid history of ‘horse-trading’ and random floor crossing [that took place in the mid 1950s], that can easily wreck governments on a daily basis, incorporated Article 70 in our own constitution with all the sincere intentions at their command. But even they, in their noble endeavour, missed certain vital points, which eventually surfaced, as we marched ahead towards the establishment of a true democratic order since our dawn of independence in 1972. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the above said Article is quite rigid and as constitutional experts have repeatedly pointed out, contradicts the fundamental rights as enunciated in Part III of the constitution, thereby curbing the rights of the MPs also, as far as freedom of thought and expression is concerned. 
   Knowledgeable people argue that “it has, in effect, usurped the powers of the MPs to defend the cause of the people—-more specifically the electorate, who voted them to parliament.” Obviously they are pleading for certain “provisions of Article 70 to be suitably modified and amended in order to bring it in conformity with the principles of unfettered democracy.” And I am sure most of us would readily agree with the views so expressed. As a matter of fact, owing to the existing constitutional provisions, the MPs on both sides of the divide are literarily handcuffed! While the MPs belonging to the opposition benches are also bound by certain rigours of parliamentary ‘whipping’, the ruling party MPs are the ones who have to maintain strict parliamentary discipline. Of course there are times when MPs from both sides of the house are allowed to vent their grievances and speak their heart out, especially when they are called upon to speak on the annual budget or when a formal vote of thanks is proposed over the speech of the President of the Republic. But those parliamentary speeches mostly remain confined to the official parliamentary proceedings as they are ritually sent to the archives for the future generation of legislators to simply ponder over! 
   Quite interestingly, in the late 1990s we saw the formal splitting of a political party, [General Ershad’s Jatiyo Party to be precise], and a group of MPs under a new leader emerging overnight; sitting and voting separately without any clear cut ruling from the chair that was mandatory, thereby negating the very essence of Article 70 in its present form. In fact, Article 70[2] clearly states inter alia: ”If at any time, any question as to the leadership of the Parliamentary party of a political party arises, the Speaker shall, within seven days of being informed of it in writing by a person claiming the leadership of the majority of the members of that party in Parliament, convene a meeting of all members of Parliament of that party in accordance with rules of procedure of Parliament and determine its Parliamentary leadership by the votes of the majority through division and if, in the matter of voting in Parliament, any member does not comply with the direction of the leadership so determined, he shall be deemed to have voted against that party under clause [1] and shall vacate his seat in the Parliament.” 
   To my knowledge, the Honourable Speaker neither ever convened any formal meeting in accordance with the constitutional provisions [and bindings] at that point, nor did anyone lose his seat or was challenged by any quarter in or outside the parliament at any time in future. In fact, Anwar Husain Manju, along with his few followers sat confidently almost besides General H. M. Ershad and ‘carried his bat through’ till the caretaker government took over in mid July 2001—-untouched and unchallenged. May I humbly ask a pertinent question? Didn’t it amount to making a mockery of Article 70 then? Similarly in the 5th parliament elected in 1991, a particular MP belonging to the Communist Party of Bangladesh, which is traditionally quite close to the Awami League, became immensely friendly with the ruling BNP stalwarts, regularly sat with them, even voted for them at times, yet he was all through a member of the opposition in the parliament with the status of his membership never questioned by any quarter! However, the irony is that the opposition at that time had tacitly accepted such ‘peculiar parliamentary movements’ and never lodged any protest with the Speaker for such constitutional deviations. Obviously such dubious movements are bound to become part of our parliamentary culture over the years and will tend to stay there as undesirable and awkward precedents. 
   And as we discuss such intricate parliamentary matters we can hardly ignore the ‘Mother of Parliaments’, i.e the House of Commons, and the parliamentary rules that it follows or the French parliamentary system which, as we all know, is quite reputed for its stability now, ever since general Charles De Gaulle took over power more than four decades ago and changed the face of an unstable France, as far as he could. De Gaulle had indeed transformed France from a laughing stock of Europe to a stable democratic republic, of which anyone can be genuinely proud. Today, however, Article 27 of the French constitution clearly says: “All mandatory instructions [upon members of Parliament] shall be null and void. The right to vote of the members of Parliament shall be personal.” That terse constitutional guideline indeed speaks volumes for itself. The British system is of course unique in its own right. “There are two aspects to this issue,” says an expert on the British constitution. The MPs have in fact two different roles to play.[a] As members of political parties, and [b] as members of the House of Commons. “As members of the House, they are entitled to vote according to their conscience, reflecting the views of their constituents; to whom they are ultimately answerable. As members of their parties, they are expected to vote according to the party’s laid down policies. Nevertheless, rebelling against their party does not lead to any parliamentary sanction; such an MP would certainly not forfeit his or her seat.” However, if a British MP persistently votes against his/her party, he or she may place himself/herself to some sort of disciplinary action. The ultimate sanction could be that he may be excluded from the party in parliament, without affecting his overall membership status, thus turning him into some sort of an Independent MP!  
   Turning once again to our own parliament, we must remember one basic point. If we are to make it truly effective in the real sense of the term and sincerely wish to restore the basic rights of the MPs, which stands curbed at the moment due to Article 70 in its present form, then we shall have to do some serious ‘re-thinking’. We shall have to suitably amend Article 70 of our constitution, incorporating the option of an MP to vote according to his/her conscience except on three fundamental and vital issues, vis-a-vis, [a] when a vote of censure or no-confidence is brought against a particular government, the MP concerned shall invariably vote for the party on whose ticket he/she was elected; [b] S/he shall not vote against the Finance Bill or against the smooth passage of the annual budget in whatever form it is placed and presented and[c] on sensitive Defence matters which may be debated in camera, if needed. And except when a motion of no-confidence is moved, the members of parliament may be allowed to speak freely on any other subject maintaining the decorum of the house as far as possible. In fact, MPs do speak their heart out whenever they get a chance to do so, through ‘speeches’ which sometimes even baffle the visitors in the galleries, but in the ultimate analysis they cannot deviate from the set path or vote against a government sponsored subject even if they totally differ with it in its form and content. In any case, there are many areas and subject matters on which the elected representatives cannot speak out today or muster the guts to differ from their parent party, but conversely in Great Britain it is a different story altogether. The British MPs have set a unique example by blasting their own party leader and Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in recent months, when he hurriedly committed himself to the US President’s weird policies over the Iraq invasion, without taking into account the sentiments of the people of Great Britain or the House itself. Many of his colleagues either resigned or voted against his decision to go to war with the USA in Iraq. As a matter of fact, if democracy has to grow along with its institutions, we shall have to change our total attitude and mental make-up also, which should be in tune with the universally accepted norms. Parliaments, where the truth is spoken unhindered, where the fundamental rights are honoured in letter and spirit and where individual opinions and sentiments are religiously respected, can only boast of being cradles of democracy. 
   The writer is a regular contributor to New Age

He became a bookworm in Jessore. A great deal of his leisure was taken up by reading books other than texts. Those were mostly books of stories belonging to different genres. He had no special liking or preference. His taste as a reader became eclectic. This, too, was not by choice but was dictated by the availability of books. They could be had any day of the week but the category of the books could not be determined or forecast in advance. There was a randomness in the working of supply and demand in the ‘book market’ where he and his friends were active. Everything about procurement of books was determined by word of mouths or by signs. It was a perfectly functioning market in so far as information was concerned. The imperfection lay in the absence of choice. One had to be satisfied with what was offered. Following this process of transaction one read the books by authors or in a category by fits and starts, often leaving gaps. Because of this, it took a long time to cover the oeuvre of an author. Lucky were those who could accomplish this in a year. There was none who could complete all books written and available in a particular genre, like adventure or crime thriller.
   There were not many sources of books open to them. Almost none of his friends in Jessore bought books other than those which were texts to be read as part of school curricula. Books of stories that they read were available in small libraries established by bookphiles in every locality. They were set up by young boys like him through subscription. In many cases the local libraries were set up by their local ‘Gurus’- the ubiquitous ‘dadas’. It was one of the services they provided to their young flock in recognition of their loyalty and many other errands carried out at their bidding. These libraries always had a humble beginning, starting with a few books, occupying a few shelves in a corner of room allotted by the owner who could be a young bookworm himself or a ‘guru’ like Arabindada. The libraries grew in number, as well as in size as days went by. There was keen competition in this respect among localities and the sponsors took pride in their book collection activity.
   It was in Jessore as a boy of nine and then ten that he had the luxury and pleasure of reading voraciously. There was competition among readers over the number of books read. It was not enough to be able to mention the title and name of the author. A synopsis of the story had to be told to the circle of friends. They would gather in the afternoon to exchange books and information about what was read. He borrowed books from the libraries of several localities and sometimes from friends who themselves had borrowed books from libraries. A book could be borrowed for a week without paying fine. He and his friends reading habits developed so fast that they could finish reading a book of standard size in two days on average. That allowed time to exchange books before the expiry of the deadline without having to pay fine. They maximized the benefits from subscription money paid through this internal exchange. Of course, they could also return the books to the library and borrow a new one with the same monthly subscription. But the exchange among friends saved time and facilitated discussion on the same book. Half of the fun was in the discussion and for that the same book had to be read by the group.
   Like his friends, he started with books of adventure followed by detective stories and ended up rather precociously with books of romance meant for adults. Book by Hemendra Kumar Roy, Pachkori Dey, Nihar Ranjan Gupta etc. covered the range from adventure to mystery and crime thriller. Sashadher Datta wrote a series known as ‘Mohan’ which fell between the area meant for young boys and adolescents. In the eponymous series there was a heroine named Roma and the romantic relation between her and the hero, Mohan, was the stuff of great excitement in their reading circle. Mohan had a valet named Bilash, who invariably raised a guttural sound before beginning a sentence. He was very much like the Jeeves character in P.G. Woodhouse books. To be seen reading books in Mohan series by boys of their age was considered a moral transgression and their elders took them to task whenever they were caught red-handed. Even reading too many story books by young boys of his age was considered an offence by their guardians, who expected them to give more time to text books. But they were not against reading of story books as long as text books were not neglected and the border of propriety in the realm of books was adhered to.
   Soon he discovered that infatuation with story books became at first an obsession and then an addiction. Like all addictions, reading books also became indiscriminate and unstoppable, the only criteria being whether one got the ‘kick’ out of reading. The ‘kick’ of course, was of a different sort. To hold interest a book had to have a good story, a plot line that kept one absorbed and curious as the reading progressed and with memorable characters. The books by Sashadhar Dutta and Nihar Ranjan fitted the bill with aplomb. Mohan and Kiriti Roy became popular icons to him and his friends. They were almost household words in their circle. But they and their ilk were not able to keep him and his friends as captive readers for long. Soon, within a year of his reading binge in Jessore, he trespassed into the world of adult readers. Books by Monoj Bose, Tara Sankar, Banophul, Achinto Kumar Dey, Sushil Jana, Manik Badopaddhay and other novelist were read without much difficulty or feeling squeamish. Achinto Kumar’s ‘Bedey’ was supposed to be very adult, having a strong erotic undertone. The more notoriety a book had, the greater was the attraction. All told, his reading habit became expansive, as well as catholic. He came to attain a degree maturity as a reader which was far advanced of his age. This had a lasting impact on his intellectual development, for better or ill.
   For his life long love affair with books he is indebted to his days in Jessore and his Hindu friends there. He cannot forget the contribution made by them in whetting his appetite for reading books. Perhaps he was born with the instinct to read. But he needed the appropriate atmosphere and adequate encouragement. Jessore in 1948 and 1949 provided him with those. It was there that ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ met.

So far, roughly half the members of President Bush’s 15-member cabinet have announced they will not be part of his second term.
   Homeland Secretary Tom Ridge is leaving. So are Don Evans, commerce Secretary and Attorney General John Ashcroft. Agriculture Secretary, M Veneman has resigned, Colin Powel, Secretary of State said his goodbyes and Energy Secretary, Spencer Abraham is just walking away.
   Defence Secretary Dolald Rumsfield will stay for his second term. And few others haven,t decided yet whether to stay or go.
   Who knew so many Bush,s senior leaders would jump ship after one term or would be wishy washy about another four year commitment? This may be Monday morning quarterbacking and analysts wonder if the election would have had a different outcome. If Americans knew they were in store for a brand new cabinet.
   Some of the recently departed said they informed the President months before the election that they would only stay one term.
   But that did not stop White House from using their names liberally during the campaign season to help the Republican ticket as if they had signed another four year contract to serve. President Bush,s lips were sealed.
   Now it,s business as usual. On Thursday, Bush selected Nebraska D Governor Mike Johnns as the new Agriculture Secretary to replace Veneman. And Bush is not just stopping at the cabinet members of his choosing. He is really working hard to meet the January 30 deadline for elections in Iraq. Despite calls for postponement by more than a dozen Sunni Muslim political parties and despite an earlier commitment to leave the final decision to Iraqi authorities. It,s time for those people to vote, and I am looking forward to it, Presiden Bush said before a group of Journalists. "It is one of those moments in history where a lot of people will be amazed that a society has been transformed so quickly from one of tyranny and torture and mass graves to one in which people actually are allowed to express themselves at the ballot."
   Even if forcing the elections cause tyranny and torture and mass killings? Analysts wonder. Obviously President Bush has lost touch with what is happening in that part of the world.
   Hopefully, in this case-and for the security of Iraq and for the US troops there-the Muslim political parties will stand their ground for a postponement in the elections and Bush’s honeymoon period effectively will be over this week if he can not work out a serious resolution to the intelligence reorganisation act, said a Presidential scholar, Stephen Hess who worked in the Eisenhower and Nixon administration, "the chattering class in Washington will let the message go forth that, Geroge W Bush — when he had more political capital in the bank than he will ever have again- was not able to get through a Republican-controlled Congress a very important bill that he endorsed strongly.