After staying fifteen-plus years under various military and presidential rules, the country reintroduced parliamentary democracy in 1991. Although three general elections of members of parliament (MP) were held between 1991 and 2001 under the caretaker government, which is unique, yet the base of a well-founded modern democratic system of government is still fragile. Repetition of the antagonistic unparliamentary political environment of the period 1973-75 has been remarked. So, many have raised questions about the future of parliamentary democracy in the country.

According to some political analysts and researchers, the factors that primarily contributed to the failure of the first parliamentary system of government in Bangladesh were: (1) constitutional, (2) political, and (3) socio-economic.

The constitutional factors included adoption of the constitution that provided for a parliamentary system of government in which all the powers were vested in the Prime Minister, and the President was relegated to a ceremonial head of the state. The framers of our constitution heavily depended upon the constitution of India. But like the President of India, the President of Bangladesh was neither vested with the executive powers of the republic nor was he made a part of Parliament.

In the words of an analyst, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founding father of the nation and Prime Minister had clear-cut supremacy over the two Presidents who could not perform their duty to preserve and protect the constitution when its provisions were misused by the government. The replacement of multi-party parliamentary democracy by the one-party presidential system of government through the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act dated, January 25, 1975 led to the demise of the first parliamentary system of government.

The political factors that contributed to the failure of the first parliament may be identified as rivalry between two factions of the ruling AL led by Tajuddin Ahmed and Khandaker Mushtaque Ahmed, the resignation tendered by Tajuddin Ahmed from the post of Finance Minister on October 26, 1973, the opposition movement outside parliament led by the Jatiyo Samajtantrik Dal (JSD) and the National Awami Party (Maulana Bhasani), the challenge and threat from the underground radical parties such as Purbo Banglar Shamyabadi Dal, Sarbohara Party, and Purbo Pakistaner Communist Party, and fourth amendment of the constitution in January 1975 leading to the introduction of dictatorial one-party presidential system of government in place of multi-party parliamentary democracy.

According to some analysts, a war-ravaged Bangladesh did not have the basic socio-political atmosphere immediately after the war to have the luxury of establishing a system of government which demands social tolerance, a basic civil society, adequate law and order situation, and above all experience and respect towards democratic institutions. The unregulated activities of the Rakkhi Bahini, particularly at the initial stage, leading to killings, looting, and even rape, enraged the ordinary people who started hating them and within a short period they started losing public credibility.

On the economic front, the nine-month liberation war left Bangladesh virtually stagnant. Immediately after independence, the country suffered from an inflationary spiral. Prices of daily necessities went beyond the purchasing power of the common people. The devastating floods in mid-1972, and food aid cut off under PL 480 worsened the crisis, which caused food deficit and ultimately famine. Confronted with the deteriorating law and order situation, worsening economic condition, and other problems, the government proclaimed a state of emergency on December 28, 1974. Within the next twenty-five days, parliament passed the fourth amendment bringing an end to the first parliamentary system of government.

After fifteen-plus years under different military and presidential rules, the country got back its parliamentary democracy in 1991 through the Constitution (Twelfth Amendment) Act, 1991. Since its reintroduction in 1991, parliamentary democracy has been facing various problems. The prevailing conditions cannot be called satisfactory for the successful functioning of parliamentary system of government.

First, the confrontational politics of the two major political parties, namely the BNP and the AL, which have held the state powers during the last fourteen years, have created an unhealthy situation for the growth of the nascent democracy in general and parliamentary system of government in particular. Parliament is the symbol of democracy. It is the place for the discussion, debate, and settlement of all sorts of national and important issues. But both the AL and the BNP, when in opposition, have resorted to street agitation, hartals, seeking solution to political, economic, and other issues.

The AL, the main opposition in the current parliament, has resorted to sustained boycott of parliament. The AL and some other political parties have demanded reforms in caretaker system of government and in the Election Commission. The AL in consultation with the other like-minded parties is expected to shortly finalise the specific proposals on these two issues. From the newspaper reports it appears that the AL is not going to attend parliament to place the proposals in parliament. They will disclose their proposals to the media. They are likely to resort to street agitation, hartals, and similar other programmes to win public support in favour of their proposals. The loss of faith in parliament to solve political and other issues gives signal that congenial atmosphere does not largely exist for the successful functioning of parliamentary system of government.

Second, many civil society leaders are of the opinion that democracy in Bangladesh is under "intensive care" where money and muscle reign supreme over politics. Dynastic nature of politics in the country reflects its inner weakness and lack of democratic credibility of the parties concerned. Money and muscle are the main instruments in our politics. Those who invest heavily in politics may expect adequate return; as a result parliament has become a commercial enterprise, leaving no time for the lawmakers to discuss serious public issues. Bangladesh has reached a stage where the leaders of the ruling and the main opposition parties are not even on talking terms. Bad politics is driving out good politicians from the political domain of the country. Such a situation does not help the smooth functioning of parliamentary democracy.

Third, democracy is one of the fundamental principles of state policy. The framers of the constitution incorporated articles in the constitution that would ensure effective participation of people through the elected representatives in administration at all levels, including the local government. The fourth amendment, introducing one-party presidential system of government in 1975 deleted these provisions. These provisions were revived when parliamentary system was reintroduced in 1991. In spite of the constitutional obligation to have local government bodies composed of elected persons in every unit of therepublic, the elected local government body now exists only at the union level. The elected local government bodies at the zila (district) and upazila (sub-district) levels have remained non-functional since the reintroduction of the parliamentary system of government. The election pledge of the major political parties to revive elected local government bodies at the zila and upazila levels has remained unfulfilled. Democratisation of the local government bodies is a means to institutionalising democracy at the grassroots level. Absence of democratic local government at the grassroots levels hampers the functioning of parliamentary system of government.

Fourth, in the economic front, high rate (about 50 percent) of poverty persists. Poverty Monitoring Survey Report (2004) of the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics shows that the income disparity gap between the poor and the rich widened in six years until 2004. Household income comparison in particular shows that the rich saw a household income level rise of 13.36 per cent while the poor found it decreasing by 3.56 percent. The nation is engulfed by a high rate of inflation and price spiral of daily necessities of life. The common people lack necessary purchasing power to procure the basic necessities of life.

Fifth, Amnesty International, the US State Department, and the European Union have expressed concern over the poor human rights in the country. Serious concern has been expressed over the extra-judicial killings following the deployment of the rapid action battalion (RAB). Some people have come to compare RAB with Rakkhi Bahini.

Last but not the least, politicisation of administration during the last one decade or so has obstructed the growth of an efficient and impartial bureaucracy. There is frequent interference in the process of governance by the ruling party and their leaders. Pointing to an all-pervasive politicisation from administration to law enforcing agencies, one noted economist has recently said that all recruitments beginning from a primary teacher to a police constable are being done on political considerations. It has also disintegrated the civil society. Even business organisations like the FBCCI, BGMEA, the professional bodies of engineers and doctors have not been spared of the curse of politicisation.

To conclude, conditions conducive to successful functioning of parliamentary system of government have to prevail. This is a responsibility of the alliance in power and the main opposition and other political parties, having representation in parliament or not. However, the ruling alliance has to take the main responsibility. It should be sincere in resolving all political disputes with the spirit of democracy without resorting to any repressive measures. It should encourage and help to grow and develop a strong opposition or coalition of opposition parties capable of offering an alternative government. Parliamentary democracy may again be at stake if the factors unfriendly to the successful functioning of parliamentary democracy are not tackled in time.

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