Parliamentary committees
Moving from form to substance

Farid Hossain

SK. enamul haq

April last year witnessed tussles between two watchdogs. The clash between the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Undertakings and the Anti-Corruption Commission has since then turned into a cold war and the tension continues to simmer.

In the first week of that April Parliament's permanent committee on public undertakings sent a letter to the anti-graft commission asking its then-chief and three other senior officials to appear before the committee along with its latest annual report, audit report and documents of its activities. The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) refused to honour the standing committee's call. The ACC defended its stand saying the standing committee has no jurisdiction over it. The ACC officials said they are accountable only to the country's president, the head of the state, and not to any one else. The standing committee, headed by Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir, a member of parliament from the ruling Awami League, felt outraged by the ACC response. In a subsequent move the parliamentary watchdog summoned the then-chief of the anti-graft watchdog Lt. Gen. Hasan Mashhud Chowdhury and three other senior officials to appear before the standing committee and explain their action. Chairman of the standing committee Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir took the lead in accusing the ACC officials of undermining the parliament and violating the constitution by not appearing before the parliamentary body. He went to suggest that the ACC officials be accused of contempt of parliament. Mainuddin Khan Badal (MP from ruling alliance), another member of the standing committee went a few steps farther in this war of words. Badal cited practices in British and Indian parliaments to say that the ACC officials could even be arrested for refusing to heed the committee's call.

At this stage the battle between the two watchdogs has reached a deadlock. No one has emerged a winner in this interesting confrontation, a rare thing in the parliamentary history of Bangladesh. The ACC has stood its ground. The standing committee has taken a break and it seems it is not pressing the issue right now.

The debate has left something positive and parliament watchers find it encouraging. The standing committees in the current parliament are trying to perform what their predecessors in the previous parliaments did not. This time the committees are aggressive in mood and assertive about their rights and responsibilities. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who is also the Leader of the House, has guided the formation of 48 standing committees (37 of them on the ministries) in the first session of the parliament, a laudable achievement indeed. She has followed up the impressive initiative she launched in the 1996-2001 parliament: the standing committees are headed by non-minister MPs, not by the ministers. This time, at least seven standing committees are being led by members not belonging to the Awami League, the largest party in the governing Mahajote Alliance. Two of these seven have gone under the leadership of MPs from the largest opposition party BNP. Since ministers are not at the helm, the standing committees are more at ease to make them answerable to the Parliament and through it to the electorate. The control button is in the hands of the MPs who are not ministers. This is the most fair thing that should have happened long before. Better late than never. The standing committees meet at least once a month and then brief the media about the meeting and decisions these took. Inside the parliament building there is now a media briefing room, an addition that has long been demanded by the media people who cover the parliament. These all point to one thing: strong parliamentary committees. Strong and assertive committees mean a better job in keeping watch on the government and make the ministers more accountable. This is in tune with the spirit of parliamentary democracy. Jatiya Sangsad or the National parliament is a sovereign and the highest political institution in Bangladesh. Elected by the people it exercises control over the executive. The government, public servants and the public sector are all accountable to the parliament. In a democratic system parliament ensures accountability of the executive through its committees. Through the committees the members of parliament keep constant and continuous watch on the government. It ensures that corruption is eliminated or reduced, transparency in administration is established and the tax payers' money is well spent for the welfare of the people. The elected representatives are supposed to monitor the activities of the ministers, government officials and other public bodies. In parliament the MPs not make laws, discuss national issues and provide guidelines to the government to ensure people's welfare. On behalf of their electorate they are also expected to perform oversight function to make the government, the public and private sectors clean and transparent.

Bangladesh is now in the process of consolidating its fledgling parliamentary democracy. Democracy, which is commonly seen in Bangladesh as people choosing their representatives for a five-year term, becomes meaningless if the vote is not accompanied by good governance, accountability and transparency. The Prime Minister and her Cabinet colleagues must be accountable to the Parliament and the MPs must be accountable to their voters.

What makes us cheerful is that the parliament's watchdog bodies _ the standing committees _ are becoming more assertive than before.

...........................................
The author is head of the Associated Press, USA

© thedailystar.net, 2010. All Rights Reserved