Lack of a quorum in the House has been a perennial problem. The situation has worsened in the current parliament i.e. eighth parliament. The Daily Star of February 24 referred to a report of Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) which says that the four sessions (11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th sessions) of parliament last year witnessed severe quorum crisis almost every day.

In the 11th session, which had 43 working days, a total of 30 hours and 51 minutes or Tk 2.77 crores was wasted due to quorum crises, as Tk 15,000 is spent a minute to run the House.

Tk 1.73 crores or 19 hours and 15 minutes had been squandered on quorum crises in the 12th session comprising 25 working days.

The quorum crises ate away Tk 13.95 lakhs or 1 hour and 33 minutes in the 13th session having only four working days and Tk 36.30 lakhs or 4 hours and 12 minutes in the 14th session that had 11 working days.

The on-going 15th session, which began on January 31, suffered the worst quorum crisis in the recent history of our parliament on February 10, compelling the Deputy Speaker, who was chairing the sitting of parliament, to adjourn the House.

According to newspaper reports, after the Magrib prayers on that day, the Deputy Speaker, finding the lack of a quorum, adjourned the House twice -- first for one minute and then for five minutes. Then he ordered a bell to be rung calling the lawmakers to join the sitting and asked the whips to bring the lawmakers to the House. But despite all attempts by the whips, the total number of lawmakers did not exceed 47 when the Deputy Speaker took the chair for the third time at 8:15 pm and adjourned the House until February 13.

Hardly a week elapsed before the Speaker had to adjourn the House again on February 22 due to lack of a quorum. Now the questions that arise are: (1) why are there frequent quorum crises, and (2) what are the remedial measures?

This article, therefore, makes an attempt to discuss both these questions.

The word "quorum" generally refers to the minimum number of authorised persons required to be present at a meeting to permit business to be transacted. In the case of the legislature, it refers to the minimum number of lawmakers who are required to remain present in the House for the transaction of business. According to the Constitution of Bangladesh, the presence of at least sixty members is necessary to constitute a quorum in a meeting of the House.

The frequent quorum crises in the Parliament of Bangladesh may be attributed primarily to the following factors:

First, tolerance, respect for the people's verdict and other norms necessary for the successful functioning of parliamentary form of government are yet to take a deep root in our political culture. Since the reintroduction of the parliamentary system of government in 1991, three general elections have been held under the non-party caretaker government for electing members of parliament (MPs).

The first one, held on February 27, 1991, was won by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP); the second one, held on June 12, 1996, was won by the Awami League (AL); and the third one, held on October 1, 2001, was won by the BNP-led 4-party alliance.

All these three general elections received national and international acclamation for their fairness and neutrality. But the losing major political party declined to accept gracefully the results of these general elections and brought charges of "vote dacoity," "rigging," etc. against the winning party or alliance. Throughout the last fourteen years or so of the parliamentary system of government, the major opposition party thus resorted to boycott of sessions or sittings to make parliament ineffective and thereby unseat the party in power.

Second, the Constitution of Bangladesh and the Rules of Procedure of Parliament have laid down the responsibilities of the MPs. A cursory look into those responsibilities will show that the MPs are primarily meant for making laws in the parliament. But attending to legislative business in parliament does not appear to be a priority to many legislators. Absence of a quorum in a sitting on November 28, 2004 where three bills were to be passed, is a clear testimony of the legislators' lack of interest in legislative business and/or in the proceedings of the House.

Third, some knowledgeable people argue that many MPs do not find interest in legislative business in the House because they think that they have nothing to do but to follow the dictation of his or her party pursuant to Article 70 of the Constitution.

Article 70(1) says: "A person elected as a member of Parliament at an election at which he was nominated as a 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 a candidate not to do so, he shall be deemed to have voted against that party."

It is argued 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."

It is pleaded that certain "provisions of Article 70 be suitably modified and amended in order to bring it in conformity with the principles of unfettered democracy."

Fourth, in the absence of Upazila (sub-district) Parishads, headed by the directly elected upazila chairmen, the MPs are advisers to the Upazila Development and Coordination Committee and to some other committees of specific nature.

An MP must have the last say in all developmental matters within his constituency. A columnist thus aptly says, "In the 300 seats of Parliament we, in fact, elect 300 executives." Involvement of an MP in the executive functions in his constituency brings him money, more power, and influence. So, attending to legislative business in Parliament has become a lesser priority to many lawmakers.

Now the question arises as to how to bring an end to quorum crisis in parliament. It requires: 1) legal measures; 2) non-legal measures; and 3) the exercise of moral sense. These are discussed below:

With regard to legal measures, the alliance government and the major opposition parties having representation in parliament or not, may consider amending clause (1) (b) of Article 67 of the Constitution which enables a lawmaker to obtain the leave of the House for his absence for ninety consecutive sitting days. The above referred leave of absence may be substantially reduced, except in case of prolonged illness of a lawmaker.

Some people have suggested to suitably amend Article 70 of the 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 concerned MP shall 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." This will encourage the MPs to attend the parliament and actively participate in its proceedings.

Pursuant to Rule 180 of Rules of Procedure of Parliament, a register is maintained showing the attendance of each member at each sitting. But what happens when a member leaves the House at the time of transaction of business or when the House is temporarily adjourned for prayers, etc. The parliament may consider suitable amendment(s) to Rule180 of Rules of Procedure.

Forming a parliamentary body to monitor the attendance of lawmakers and introducing an award for the highest attendance in the House may help improve the quorum crisis situation.

Involvement of the MPs in local development work in the capacity of Advisers to the Upazila Development and Coordination Committee is at variance with the responsibilities assigned to them by the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure of Parliament. The Public Administration Reform Commission in its report of June 2000 thus recommended that "the role of the MP as Upazila Adviser may be reviewed and he/she may be involved only in planning matters relating to his jurisdiction."

According to some people, non-legal measures such as, regular presence of the Prime Minister in the House may considerably help improve attendance of the MPs, particularly of the ruling party/alliance, in the House.

Regarding the exercise of moral sense, the lawmakers have to remember that they are handsomely paid from the taxpayers' money to attend to the business of the House. Further, they should not forget that they have to speak in the House for the removal of the grievances of the constituencies they represent.

To conclude, it is always the responsibility of the party/ alliance in power and of the opposition parties, particularly the main opposition party, having representation in parliament to make parliament vibrant and effective.

M. Abdul Latif Mondal is a former Secretary to the government.