Growing divide over reforms becomes clearer in 3rd session of Parliament

The political tensions over implementing reform proposals became more evident during the third session of the 13th National Parliament.

It was expected that one of the key tasks of this Parliament, formed after the July mass uprising, would be to create the laws needed to lay the groundwork for various state and institutional reforms.

However, the session has raised questions over how much of the reform proposals formulated during the interim government’s tenure will ultimately be implemented and how much actual change they will bring.

The nine-working-day session once again brought to the fore tensions between the government and the opposition, as well as haste in the law-making process and a lack of tolerance for differing opinions.

At the same time, Parliament gave significant attention to public-interest issues such as fuel and gas shortages and the fertiliser crisis. While the government presented its plans, the opposition criticised them and put forward alternative proposals.

The third session began on 27 August and ended on 10 September. Parliament passed a total of six bills during the session. Members of Parliament submitted more than 150 notices under various rules.

The Prime Minister herself answered 15 questions. Of the 2,676 questions submitted to ministers of various ministries, they answered 1,678. In addition, 35 of the 50 parliamentary committees were formed during this session. The remaining committees had been formed earlier.

The main tensions between the government and the opposition during the session centred on the distribution of parliamentary committee chairmanships in line with the proposals of the July Charter and the passage of three reform-related bills.

During the interim government’s tenure, several legal reforms were introduced alongside proposals for constitutional reform to facilitate various institutional reforms.

As part of this process, the interim government issued 133 ordinances. During the first session of the current Parliament, 16 of these ordinances were not introduced as bills within the stipulated timeframe.

As a result, they ceased to have effect. Another seven ordinances were repealed through repeal bills.

These ordinances included provisions concerning the appointment of Supreme Court judges and the establishment of a separate secretariat, as well as ordinances relating to preventing enforced disappearances, the Anti-Corruption Commission, the Police Commission and the National Human Rights Commission.

After the first session, the government said it would later introduce stronger bills covering the issues that had been left out. In line with that commitment, Parliament passed two new bills during the third session concerning the National Human Rights Commission and the prevention of enforced disappearances.

However, the opposition alleged that the two bills were weaker than the corresponding ordinances introduced during the interim government’s tenure.

The opposition did not participate at any stage of the passage of the two bills. It also staged a walkout from Parliament in protest against their introduction. The government, however, claimed that the two bills had been made stronger than the previous provisions.

Under the ordinance issued during the interim government’s tenure, the National Human Rights Commission was given responsibility for investigating allegations of enforced disappearance.

Under the new Prevention of Enforced Disappearance and Remedies Act, the investigation will be conducted by law enforcement agencies.

However, if a complaint is brought against a law enforcement agency or any of its members, that agency will not be allowed to investigate the allegation.

Meanwhile, criticism has emerged over the process for forming the selection committee responsible for appointing members of the National Human Rights Commission and over the commission’s authority to investigate allegations of human rights violations against law enforcement agencies.

The ordinance issued during the interim government’s tenure empowered the commission to conduct inquiries and investigations into allegations against law enforcement agencies. Under the new law, the commission will be able to request a report from the relevant agency in such cases.

There has been a similar debate over the bill to abolish the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) and establish the “Special Response Battalion (SRB)”.

The opposition alleged that despite the change of name, RAB’s personnel, resources, powers and structure would be transferred to the new force. It described the move as merely a change of the “signboard”.

The biggest political dispute during the third session centred on the chairmanships of parliamentary standing committees. Under the proposals of the July National Charter, the chairmen of the committees on Public Accounts, Privileges, Estimates and Public Undertakings are supposed to come from the opposition.

It also proposes that the chairmen of the standing committees related to ministries should be selected from among opposition members in proportion to their representation in Parliament. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) agreed with this proposal.

The opposition holds nearly 26 per cent of the seats in Parliament. Under the July Charter proposal, the opposition was supposed to receive 14 chairmanships in total, including 10 of the 39 ministry-related committees. However, it received only one.

The distribution of these chairmanships triggered a dispute between the government and the opposition.

The ruling party said it had no objection to giving the opposition committee chairmanships in line with the July Charter if the opposition nominated representatives to the special committee on constitutional amendments.

Otherwise, it would consider the matter after implementing the July Charter. The opposition, however, rejected the condition. It supports reforms rather than constitutional amendments.

Parliament formed the special committee on constitutional amendments during its second session on 13 July. The opposition did not nominate any members to the committee during the third session either.

This has raised questions over how far the current Parliament will ultimately be able to reach consensus on constitutional amendments. Implementing the July Charter or amending the Constitution is not simply a matter of passing legislation.

It involves fundamental questions concerning the distribution of power, the independence of institutions, the role of the opposition and the future parliamentary system.

If Parliament cannot become a forum for compromise and reasoned debate on these issues, the political legitimacy of the reforms could also come under question.

The opposition remained dissatisfied until the final day because Parliament had not distributed the 50 committee chairmanships in accordance with the July Charter.

Meanwhile, ministers holding the rank of adviser, the chief whip and whips were made chairmen of some parliamentary standing committees. State ministers were also made members of committees unrelated to their own ministries.

The Rules of Procedure do not prevent committees from being formed in this manner.

However, one of the main functions of parliamentary committees is to hold the executive branch accountable. Speaker Hafiz Uddin Ahmad himself raised questions twice about the way the committees were formed.

In his words, “The executive branch will be accountable to the legislature. If the executive branch itself becomes the chairman of a committee, then to whom will it be accountable?” He said the matter should be viewed in light of the fundamental spirit of parliamentary democracy.

The current Parliament passed 91 bills during its first session. At that time, Parliament had to rush through the bills because a deadline had been set for approving ordinances issued during the interim government’s tenure.

However, the same haste was evident during the third session, even though there is no longer any such deadline. Parliament introduced and passed six bills during the nine-working-day session. Ministers repeatedly cited the shortage of time as a reason.

Except for the SRB Bill, the relevant parliamentary standing committees were given two days each to scrutinise the other bills. Following a demand from the opposition, the committee was given four days to examine the SRB Bill. However, the parliamentary committees held only one meeting each to scrutinise a bill.

In addition, some members alleged that they had not received certain bills three days before their introduction in Parliament, as required by the rules. Deputy Speaker Kayser Kamal also criticised the executive branch over the matter.

He said, “Bills should be sent to the legislature as soon as possible after they are approved by the Cabinet, so that all members of Parliament can read them thoroughly before coming to the House.”

He said there had been some deviation from this practice and expressed his disappointment in Parliament over the matter.

On the very first day of the session, opposition members created a major uproar over a statement made by Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed. Even after the Home Minister announced that he would withdraw the statement, the opposition continued its protest.

At one point, Speaker Hafiz Uddin Ahmad said he was somewhat concerned about the future of Parliament.

The incident raised questions about the culture of expressing and tolerating dissent in Parliament. Similar concerns emerged towards the end of the session when ruling-party members created a commotion over remarks made by independent MP Rumeen Farhana.

While Rumeen criticised the BNP government, members of the ruling party continued to protest.

At one point, they were also accused of using abusive language towards Rumeen. Deputy Speaker Kayser Kamal then said that obstructing a member while speaking was contrary to democratic norms.

Describing the third session solely as one of political confrontation would not present the full picture. Parliament also held discussions and debates on matters of public interest, including the electricity and energy crisis and the fertiliser shortage, following notices submitted by members.

The government blamed past policy mistakes, corruption and mismanagement for the energy crisis and presented its plans to Parliament to address it.

On the fertiliser shortage, the government said there were sufficient stocks. The opposition, however, said the failure to ensure that fertiliser reached farmers had exposed weaknesses in the government’s distribution system.

The third session was active in terms of parliamentary business: bills were passed, committees were formed and matters of public interest were discussed.

However, the government–opposition divide became evident over important reform-related legislation, the leadership of parliamentary committees and the scope for expressing dissent.

Badiul Alam Majumdar, a former member of the National Consensus Commission, told Prothom Alo, “Several important ordinances were issued during the interim government’s tenure. The current government did not approve them because it said it would enact better laws on these issues. However, given the way the bills on the National Human Rights Commission Act and the Prevention of Enforced Disappearance Act were passed during this session, it appears that the government is moving in the opposite direction on many issues. No bill concerning the Supreme Court was introduced during this session either. It may be introduced later. However, so far, the government’s 'track record' on reforms has been disappointing.”