Editorial
The ACC, in a spin
The Anti-Corruption Commission or, more specifically, its chairman has been seized with the idea of setting up an intelligence wing for the organisation. There are quite a few difficult questions which come up as a result of such a move. In the first place, Justice Sultan Hossain Khan does not appear to have had any consultations with his colleagues, Professor Maniruzzaman Miah and Maniruddin Ahmed, before making his views on the intelligence unit known. In the second, the fact that the chairman has already proposed that a good number of army officers be considered as part of the manpower structure for such a unit has predictably raised quite some hackles, especially in such individuals as Professor Miah. Finally, it is a good question as to whether there is at all any requirement for a new intelligence or counter-intelligence unit at a time when there are already a very good number of organisations working away in the interest of intelligence gathering throughout the country. Does it make sense to add to an already bloated bureaucratic structure for the country?
Be that as it may, there are very clear reasons to think that the Anti-Corruption Commission has not been able to convince the country, months into its formation, that it is all set to get down to work. For one thing, there is yet the unresolved matter of what precisely its organogram will be. For another, there is the clear public feeling that the chairman and the two commissioners have more often than not been unable to agree on certain vital issues, such as those arising out of the absorption or otherwise of the staff and officers of the now defunct Bureau of Anti-Corruption. One of the officers of the BAC appointed to the ACC has already resigned. At one point, the executive powers of Professor Miah were taken away by the chairman, an issue that does not appear to have been resolved. The last time the country heard anything about the brewing crisis in the ACC, the academic was contemplating his departure from the body. But then the chairman stepped forward to suggest that Maniruzzaman Miah was not resigning. In effect, the circumstances in which the ACC has been functioning have been growing increasingly murky, and with the restrictions newly placed on journalists’ entry into the offices of the organisations, there are all the signs of the ACC retreating into its shell and thereby not being the transparent body it was supposed to be in the first place. It is for all these reasons that the public perception about the commission is rapidly turning out to be one of disappointment. Plainly, the ACC has so far had nothing to show for results. The very public manner in which it sent out letters to a few ministries a couple of months ago about a very large number of missing project-related vehicles was followed, quite inexplicably, by a dying down of the uproar. That was surely not a good beginning. In its own interest and in the larger interest of probity, the ACC needs to explain follow-up action, if any, it has taken regarding the missing vehicles.
Overall, the Anti-Corruption Commission must get its act together. One does not need much wisdom to know that in these last few months, drift has been a pivotal force behind the operations, or a lack of them, of the commission. Such a condition must be brought to an end if the reputation of the ACC, now on the slide, is to be retrieved somewhat. Our sadness is in knowing that what began with a huge bang may now be going out with so much of whimper.
After Aslan Maskhadov
The Russain government has announced the death of the rebel Chechnya leader Aslan Maskhadov. Obviously, the authorities in Moscow would like to portray the end of the man who has long symbolised Chechen resistance to Russian domination as a major triumph for President Vladimir Putin. The hope in Moscow will be that Maskhadov’s death will now create a situation where resistance will fizzle out and the Chechens will become more amenable to Russian demands that they stay part of the federation. But since politics is regularly unpredictable, especially in the world’s volatile regions, it may well be that the death (said to have occurred when Russia’s elite forces zeroed in on Maskhadov’s hideout, which explanation has again been questioned) will only inflame Chechen passions further.
Perhaps one of the biggest ironies in all this tale of how Maskhadov turned against Moscow is the fact that he was once close to the Russians. Boris Yeltsin thought it wise to deal with Maskhadov since the latter was once a soldier in the Soviet army. But things changed when the Russians, especially with Putin in office, went on a full-scale offensive against the Chechen rebels. There was plain ruthlessness in the way the Russian military went after Maskhadov’s followers. As for the rebel leader, he did what was required of him under the circumstances: he transformed himself from a politician into a guerrilla commander. Under his guidance, the Chechens gave the Russians a hard time. But it was the massacre of the school children in Beslan that may have sealed Maskhadov’s fate. The Moscow authorities put the blame for the tragedy on Aslan Maskhadov and with that tightened the screws on him. After Beslan (and one is not quite sure if Maskhadov indeed had anything to do with it), life turned increasingly hard for the rebel leader. And now he is dead.
The end of Aslan Maskhadov ought to be seized upon by President Putin as an opportunity for reconciliation. It ought not to be held up as a spoil of war. If there is anything Chechens need today, it is the promise of a life to be lived in dignity. Mr. Putin has to find the ways to satisfy that urge.
WORTH a LOOK
Reforms for making parliament effective
The other frontal attack on ineffectiveness of parliament came from chairmen of JS standing committees. The chairmen articulated their views in this regard in a recently held seminar organised by UNDP. The consensus was that the recommendations made by such committees were not implemented by the relevant ministries, writes AMM Shawkat Ali
The English version of the constitution describes parliament as ‘the House of the Nation’. The Bangla version calls it Jatiyo Sangsad. The parliament is officially and popularly known as Jatiyo Sangsad or simply as Sangsad. The debate about parliament’s ineffectiveness or its being dysfunctional has been going on for quite sometime. Last week, it came under attack on two counts. First, it is described by the Transparency International, Bangladesh (TIB) as ineffective if not entirely dysfunctional. This perception is based on the ground that parliament is at least doing its legislature business. But how and in what manner it is carrying out its legislative business have also been questioned in the past. The questions of adequate scrutiny apart, the sheer weight of ‘voice votes’ prevented any meaningful amendment proposed by others. In all or most cases, public opinion on draft bills, although proposed by other members, was not elicited. In the result, law-making process is entirely dominated by executive style of decision-making.
TIB’s findings
TIB had in the past, made public, the results of its study titled ‘Parliament Watch’. The latest findings relate to the quorum crisis in parliament. It is said to cost Tk. 50 million at Tk. 15,000 per minute. Parliament could not function for 55 hours for lack of quorum. The cost of every word uttered in parliament is estimated by TIB to cost at least Tk. 100. Of the 491 adjournment motions sought to be introduced, none was accepted for discussion. Out of 83 working days, the main opposition party boycotted parliamentary sittings for 48 days.
It is reported that the speaker had rejected the study findings as conjectural. This has been done despite the fact that TIBs study is based on a number of sources such as media reports, daily bulleting and excerpts from proceedings. One would have expected that instead of giving instant reactions in terms of rejection, the speaker could have said that without a scrutiny of the report, it was difficult to make any comment. The habit of denial of findings without thorough scrutiny of study does not serve any purpose. It serves only to widen the credibility gap of one of the highest pillars of the state.
Remedies suggested by TIB
In order to ensure that the voices of the opposition members are heard, TIB study is reported to have suggested enactment of a law. The law should provide for a day in each 15 working days for the opposition to participate. Indeed one of the main planks of the argument in favour of boycott of parliamentary sessions is that the opposition members are not permitted time to speak. On the face of it, the suggested remedy appears to be a novel one. However, whether this will satisfy the opposition party or parties remains an open question. They may well demand more than a day.
It is possible to argue that no enactment may be necessary. The rules of procedures (ROP) that guide parliamentary transaction of business provide for half an hour discussion on any matter of public importance if three clear days’ notice is given. The speaker has also the discretion to extend time beyond half an hour if more than one member of parliament give such notice. This rule is meant as an alternative to adjournment motion.
At the same time, there is also provision for adjournment motion on a matter of urgent public importance. The speaker has the discretion to set a time limit for discussion. There are of course certain restrictions to raise adjournment motions but these are not meant to deny the opportunity for such a motion. If both the mechanisms are used to facilitate discussion and participation by the members of the opposition, there appears to be no need to go in for a separate law as TIB has advocated.
The laws and rules may be necessary but not a sufficient condition to make parliament effective. The effectiveness is contingent upon free and fair discussion on all matters of policy and executive actions that affect public interest. The spirit of accommodation and understanding rather than denial of opportunities for discussion that are necessary, if not entirely sufficient conditions for making parliament effective.
The second frontal attack
The other frontal attack on ineffectiveness of parliament came from chairmen of JS standing committees. The chairmen articulated their views in this regard in a recently held seminar organised by UNDP. The consensus was that the recommendations made by such committees were not implemented by the relevant ministries. On the face of it, the issue raised is a serious one. However, one needs to have more facts in terms of the number and nature of recommendations so made.
In this context also, the chairmen demanded that the government should enact a law to make it mandatory for ministries to implement the recommendations made by the standing committees within a stipulated time. Prima facie, it is a suggestion to make the standing committees effective. However, how consistent it is with the classical theory of separation of powers remains to be assessed. One finds that there is a tendency to merge and then confuse parliamentary oversight functions with those that lie in the executive domain. The oversight functions should not extend to intrusion into executive arena. The way out is to find the best practice model.
One would venture to add that the best practice model is based on conventions rather than on law. This will require a more in-depth examination of the working of the committees, the quality and content of their deliberations and how many recommendations made during a year were not acted upon the relevant ministries.
Rules relating to parliamentary resolution
In this context, it may be useful to refer to the provisions contained in ROP as they apply to parliamentary resolutions. Under the relevant rules, a private member or a minister may move a resolution relating to a matter of general public interest. A private member is defined as a member other than a minister. There are, of course, certain restrictions relating mainly to matters before tribunals, inquiry commissions etc. Rules also require that the minister concerned shall inform the parliament in the next session, if not earlier, of the action taken by the government on a resolution passed by JS.
It is evident that in case of resolutions there is a specific time-limit for the minister to inform the parliament of the action taken. In our parliamentary history, resolutions on matters of public importance are rare. The way forward is to set such a time limit for implementation of recommendations of the standing committees to be made by the minister concerned in the parliament not later than the next session. This can be tagged to the submission of reports of the committees to the parliament for which provision exists in ROP.
Lack of secretariat support
No chairman complained of lack of timely and adequate secretariat support for their committees. Only one chairman complained of logistic support such as non-availability of an internet in his office-chamber. Those familiar with the working of the committees feel convinced that lack of adequate secretariat support remains the single largest obstacle to efficient functioning of the committees. This is an aspect, which need serious attention.
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
