|
Talk
Shop
Shawkat
Hussain
About
a 150 years back, Thomas Carlyle, great Victorian critic
and sage labeled the British Parliament a “talk shop” for
the members of the landed aristocracy. Fox-hunting and the
partridge-shooting were the favourite pastimes for the nobility,
but when these arduous activities were over, those members
of the aristocracy who were also members of the parliament
would descend upon the Parliament and talk and talk and
talk. Carlyle's characterization of the parliament was of
course pejorative; it was a conservative response to the
evolution of parliamentary democracy in England. When one
million new voters, mostly from the poorer classes, became
enfranchised in 1967, Carlyle threw up his hands in despair,
and thought England was shooting down the Niagara, plunging
the nation into disaster. Carlyle fears were partly understandable,
but he was wrong in his prediction of the outcome of the
extension of the franchise. There was no revolution in England.
One-man
one-vote, or universal manhood suffrage, was an unthinkable
idea. The question of universal adult suffrage, where every
adult, man or woman, would have the right to vote, did not
even figure in the worst nightmares of British conservatives.
This reform was at least two decades away. For Carlyle,
the idea of giving one vote to one man was tantamount to
“doghood” or “horsehood” suffrage. To allow the poorer classes
to vote would be no better than giving animals the right
to vote. Well, let us be clear about this. Most of us dogs
or horses in Bangladesh want to continue to be able to vote.
The foundations of what we have today in Bangladesh (at
least the façade of what we practice in this country)Parliamentary
Democracy were thus laid over a century back in the same
England which Carlyle thought was heading towards a catastrophe.
But do we deserve this right to vote when those we elect
to the Parliament refuse to talk?
The
Parliament is indeed a talk shop, or at least ought to be
one. If there is no talking in the Parliament, there cannot
be a Parliament in the true sense. It is talking in the
Parliament, according to another great Victorian, Walter
Bagehot (he wrote The English Constitution) that leads to
a real “government by discussion.” One of the great benefits
of a government by discussion is that it works both as a
contraceptive and a prophylactic: the more you talk the
less you procreate; the more you talk in the parliament
the less you agitate in the streets. The first is quite
a novel idea, and we don't know where Bagehot got this idea
from. And in any case, this idea wouldn't work for Bangladesh
where the population is now well over 120 million. But in
England, Parliamentary Democracy has indeed worked as a
kind of prophylacticone against revolution. Talking in the
Parliament led to numerous reforms, and reforms forestalled
the possibility of revolutions.
Talk
is often just hot air; but sometimes talk can lead to good
things, as it has in England and in other countries that
really practice parliamentary democracy: it can lead to
reforms of the Parliament itself, it can lead legislation
that allows women the right to vote, to humane factory laws
and labour laws, and numerous other legislations that guarantee
better lives of the citizens of the nations. Even as I write
these words, hopeful words about what the Parliament can
do, it seems like so much hot air to me. It seems like hot
air not because we dogs and horses who voted the government
to power have done anything wrong. It is simply because
the Parliament has failed because it refuses to talk. So
what would be the point of voting another government to
power three years from now when you know that the winning
party would act with predictable arrogance, and the losing
party with equally predictable sulking. This the not the
“government by discussion” that Parliamentary Democracy
is supposed to ensure for the millions of voters who take
the trouble to vote, and the crores of Taka spent on the
entire electoral process.
Dogs
and horses are not supposed to think much about these matters.
They are simply supposed to vote and shut up for the next
five years when they vote again, hoping that things will
be somehow better. But some dogs do think. These thoughts
about the Parliament as a talk shop come to mind because
we have been reading about the recently-concluded 42nd Conference
of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in its 91-year
history. Over 500 delegates, spouses and visitors from about
50 countries descended on Bangladesh, and we have just given
them an embarrassing sample of what kind of Parliamentary
Democracy we practice.
There
were numerous glitches, big and small, in the management
of the Conference: the national anthem could not be played,
flags were flown upside down, and there were many other
protocol bunglings. But the biggest mess-up was the absence
of Members of Parliament from the opposition Awami League.
Whatever the background of this boycott, this absence discredits
our credentials as a country that practices parliamentary
democracy, discredits the ruling party for its short-sighted
exclusionary policy in the preparatory stages, discredits
the opposition party for its inability to rise above the
pettiness of the other party and show a largeness and generosity
of political vision that is at the basis of all governments
by discussion. Awami League would have gained much from
talking, drinking, discussing, arguing, and socialising
with the other parliamentarians who gathered here for a
week. Sending crests and others gifts to visiting delegates
in Sonargaon and Sheraton were very feeble gestures of appeasement.
Even
without the Awami League, there was surely some good talk
in the Conference. There were calls for global peace, more
representation for women, better opportunities for marginalized
communities, better parliamentary practices, and lots of
other high-sounding rhetoric about how to make the world
a better place. I wish they would unitedly call for one
very doable thing: eliminate visa fees amongst Commonwealth
countries; better still just do away with visas. Really
good talk is one that leads to a really good deed.
|