& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

JS bodies fail to deliver for negative politics

SHAKHAWAT LITON
The parliamentary standing committees, intended to operate as crucial supplements to the parliamentary system, are failing to fulfil this function due to the negative politics of the ruling and opposition parties.
The 51 such committees of the eighth parliament are currently functioning very poorly -- often following the positions of the minis-
NEWS ANALYSIS
tries to which they are connected rather than having their own voice, which raises questions about the effectiveness of these committees in ensuring the accountability and transparency of the executive.
The standing committee system currently in place suffers from many
defects.
Firstly, most of these committees were instituted 20 months after the government was formed and at least 50 bills have been passed in parliament without committee scrutiny, as the committees had then not yet been formed.
But this is not a defect of the current parliament alone. In the last parliament, the then-ruling Awami League (AL) formed standing com mittees only after one and a half years, keeping slots vacant for the-then main opposition BNP.
Secondly, most standing committees have no opposition party representation. The AL is represented on only five committees that were formed immediately after the eighth parliament was formed and deal with the basic functioning of parliament. Not one of these committees is connected to a ministry.
The AL refrained from nominating its deputies to the rest of the standing committees on the grounds that the ruling party did not consult it on the formation of these committees.
The ruling party has gone ahead without opposition party participation and held over 100 standing committee meetings since forming the remaining 46 committees within the last three months.
The lack of opposition party representation on the standing committees renders them ineffective in fulfilling their intended functions.
The past AL government instituted a rule that a minister cannot be the chairman of any standing committee. This rule has been praised even by its arch rival BNP as making the standing committees stronger.
But the benefit of this system remains untapped due to the absence of the opposition from the committees. There is thus nobody to oppose or challenge any action taken by the ruling party, and this has opened the door for the ruling party to use the committees for their own interests.
Many vital issues are not being raised for discussion. The opposition could have availed itself of the standing committees to discuss vital issues like law and order or the prices of essentials, playing a positive role in opposition. But the AL is uninterested in playing such a role, saying that it is pointless without a meaningful opportunity for the opposition to speak in parliament.
Allegations have also been raised that some committees are dominated by the ministers concerned, as the chairmen of these bodies are junior to the ministers politically and also lower in the party's chain of command.
Questions have been raised over the effectiveness of some committees as these appear to do little more than echo the voice of the government. Ruling party lawmakers do not raise their voice against any ministry's activities in parliament fearing the loss of party mem-
bership even though they are allowed to do so in committee meetings.
There exist any number of examples of standing committees functioning as mere mouthpieces of the ministries they are connected to.
The standing committee on home affairs expressed its satisfaction at the performance of the police and resolved that the existing law and order situation was satisfactory, echoing the view of the ministry and denying the reality.
The committee on law, justice and parliamentary affairs does not meet more than once a month as it has to deal with the independent anti-corruption bill -- an issue it is unwilling to deal with absent a green light from the law ministry. The law ministry has been sitting on the bill since July and the chairman of the standing committee says that unless the ministry decides on it, the committee cannot progress in this direction.
The chairman of the post and telecommunications ministry's committee, G M Fazlul Haque, declared at its first meeting that there were no cases of irregularities or corruption in the ministry.
The committee of the energy ministry declined to discuss the issue of gas export this week at the directive of higher authorities.
Finally, the standing committees do not meet regularly -- rendering the committee system more ornamental than functional. A dozen committees have violated Jatiya Sangsad rules of procedure by not holding meetings within 30 days.
It was observed at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) conference held recently in Dhaka that the committee system was an effective way of ensuring executive accountability to the legislature. The committees have an in-built advantage of being smaller bodies with greater time available to them to examine an issue in detail.
It is no exaggeration to say that the real work of parliament nowadays is performed in committees.
However, owing to a lack of understanding between the ruling and opposition parties the committee system in Bangladesh can neither ensure the accountability and transparency of the executive nor address crucial issues of national importance in a meaningful way.