& 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

Adviser vs. minister: Who holds the power?

Shifting the task of finalising list to the adviser raises a relevant question -- who plays the key role in the ministry? Who holds the power, the minister or the adviser? According to the constitution and the norms of parliamentary democracy, a minister should be the key person and decision maker for any affair of his/her ministry.

Md. Anwarul Kabir
IN addition to forty-one ministers and state ministers in the cabinet of the present government there are seven advisers to the prime minister, presumably assigned to oversee the activities of different ministries. Five advisers have been allocated portfolios of specific ministries. Perhaps, the most confusing feature is the status of these advisers.
However, in the constitution of our Republic, there is no provision for appointment of such advisers. Article 55(1) of the constitution states that there shall be a cabinet with the prime minister at its head and
Article 56(1) says "there shall be a prime minister, and such other ministers, ministers of state and deputy ministers as may be determined by the prime minister." So, clearly, advisers are not part of the cabinet.
But when we see advisers as overseers of the ministries the question of status and accountability arises. Who is the chief executive of the concerned ministry? The minister or the adviser? Who is accountable to whom? In a Westminster style parliamentary form of government, the concerned minister of the ministry is the chief executive of his or her ministry.
Though Article 55(3) of our constitution
states that "the cabinet shall be collectively responsible to Parliament," according to Articles 56(1), 58 (2) ministers are accountable to the prime minister.
The question of status and accountability of ministers versus advisers surfaced recently surrounding an untoward event in the Ministry of Education. The sudden cancellation of Money Pay Order (MPO) list of the government subsidised educational institutions, prepared and announced by Education Minister Mr. Nurul Islam Nahid, has upset many of the conscious citizens of the country.
It is learned that this honest and sincere minister accommodated only the deserving institutes in the list, discarding any sort of political influence. The list was prepared strictly, following the set criteria - - the number of students in non-MPO institutions, number of students taking public examinations every year, the pass rate and the date of government approval for the institution.
The list was so transparent that leading educationists and other conscious citizens of the country were more than happy because,
for the first time, it was unbiased. In this context, a quote from National Professor Kabir Chowdhury — "Under governments formed by political parties, there will always be political pressure, but the education minister and the ministry must rise above that with courage. And I believe Nahid has been doing that. We also are at one with him and we salute him for his honest and strict endeavour" — can be cited. Congratulations to Mr. Nahid as he could fulfill the conscious citizens' expectation in preparing the list.
However, the irony was that the minister had to cancel the list because of the undue demand of a section of Awami League leaders, including lawmakers, as the list failed to include the insinuations they had lobbied for.
They alleged that many non-government institutions named after Bangabandhu and also after freedom fighters had not been included in the list. In this context, it may be argued that name of the institutes or any political consideration should not be the criteria for getting MPO.
Later in a cabinet meeting, although the education minister tried to defend himself by saying that the list was transparent and in accordance with the set guidelines, the prime minister, complying with the undue pressure of the ministers asked the adviser of the Ministry of Education to review and finalise the list.
However, shifting the task of finalising list to the adviser raises a relevant question — who plays the key role in the ministry? Who holds the power, the minister or the adviser? As mentioned earlier, according to the constitution and the norms of parliamentary democracy, a minister should be the key person and decision maker for any affair of his/her ministry.
Apparently, in the wake of the undesirable event of the education ministry, it seems that the adviser holds the power of the ministry. Paying due respect to the advisers, however, it can be argued that unlike ministers advisers are not elected representatives. For a sound propagation of the democracy, the status of the elected representative should always be higher any that of un-elected persons. This should not only be prescribed in the constitution, it should also be in practice too.
If advisers to the prime minister act as the key personnel of the concerned ministry, it would hurt our weak democracy. Hopefully, Honourable Prime Minister Shiekh Hasina, whom we lovingly call the daughter of democracy for her glorious role in establishing democracy, will pay attention to this sensitive issue.
Md, Anwarul Kabir is a regular contributor to the Daily Star. Email: kabiranwar@yahoo.com.