The speaker or deputy speaker should rise above party affiliation to maintain dignity of the parliament. The partisan attitude of the speaker as we have witnessed in the previous sessions undermines independence of the legislative body. Let all of them speak on any subject they wish to. Members belonging to ruling and opposition parties may subject any action taken by the government to criticism. But the speaker and ruling party MPs are encouraging opposition lawmakers to speak in the street and use other platforms to air their opinions.

In this connection, may I draw attention of the speaker and ruling party MPs to the debate in the House of Commons on 17-18 March 2003 on the issue of war against Iraq? More than 120 members belonging to the ruling British Labour Party criticised the role of Prime Minister Tony Blair followed by resignation by two junior ministers and a leader in the House of Commons protesting the policy pursued by Labour Government. On the other hand, the leader of the Conservative party (opposition party in Britain) took the floor to defend the Prime Minister unconditionally to save the position of the government on its commitment for deployment of troops in the war against Iraq. This is role model of the parliamentary democracy. The leader of the Conservative party avoided temptation to embarrass the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister even won the motion with the blessing of the Conservative party. In fact, the leader of the Conservative party showed his sagacity and magnanimity in support of the Prime Minister, who was under tremendous pressure from his own party members.

In Bangladesh, both ruling and opposition party should set up at least one such example in the interest of the country. There are so many issues to take on. Provision 70 (1) of the constitution states that parliament shall appoint standing committees. And the main purposes of these committees are to a) examine draft bills and other legislative proposals; (b) review enforcement of laws and propose measures for such enforcement; (c) conduct investigation or inquiry if necessary into the activities or administration of a ministry. The members of these committees are empowered to enforce the attendance of witnesses and examine them on oath to compel the production of documents.

In the light of the powers given to standing committees, tabling of bills in the House and passing into laws without proper scrutiny by the standing committee concerned seems to be not in order. Why the speaker did not insist on the formation of the standing committees, which are so important for scrutinising the bills before placing in the House, in the first session of the eighth parliament? The question now arises about the legal status of the bills so far passed by the parliament without scrutiny by a standing committee.

In the seventh session 11 Parliamentary Standing Committees were formed without the majority opposition party in the parliament. This is in violation of democratic norm. In some foreign countries a member from the opposition party generally heads Public Accounts Committee. As pointed out by opposition Chief Whip the government violated rules of procedures by including State Ministers in Public Accounts Committee and Public Undertaking Committee. In the seventh parliament rules of procedures have been amended to allow MPs to chair the meetings of Parliamentary Standing Committees instead of ministers, as had been the practice in the past. It is hoped that the practice introduced in the seventh parliament will continue to be honoured.

The Chief Whips of different political parties are under obligation to ensure presence of the MPs when a session is in progress since MPs enjoy certain privileges and immunities, apart from remuneration and allowances for participation in the session of the parliament. It would be rather interesting to have a glance of the survey recently conducted by Transparency International Bangladesh, which indicated that none of the thirty-eight working days' sittings during the fourth, fifth and sixth sessions could start due to 'quorum crisis'. The survey also revealed that Taka two crore thirty-five lakh was wasted because the sessions did not begin in time. Is the parliament meant for flattering and glorification of the leaders of the political parties? Leaders are elected by the people to serve the people. They are paid from poor taxpayers' money. If they do not undertake responsibility, they will be thrown out in the street again by the people.

In Britain, for example, the speaker is sometimes selected from the opposition bench in the House of Commons. He remains neutral and plays a significant role to make the parliamentarians from both the ruling and opposition parties answerable to the voters of their constituencies. The British Prime Minister speaks once a week in parliament for thirty minutes to answer questions of the parliamentarians. The Prime Minister meets the convenience of the leader of the opposition and the leader of the opposition meets the convenience of the government. In Bangladesh, the leader of the ruling party and the leader of the opposition are not even in talking terms since the general elections of February 1991 but they represent two major political parties in the country. What the countrymen would expect from such leaders as lack minimum decorum and democratic norms? One may differ on a issue politically but there should not be any difficulty to come to terms on the issue of vital importance of the country. Let us look at the situation in India. Both BJP and Congress do not see eye to eye on many issues but Congress and other political parties gave unconditional nod to the Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's offer of friendship to Pakistan.

It is regrettable to note that Jatiya Sangsad has refrained from discussing serious international issue of invasion of Iraq by America and Britain violating international law and the charter of the United Nations. President Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive attack is a dangerous one, which may cause a serious threat to small neighbouring countries. Indian parliament and Pakistan's assembly discussed the invasion of Iraq. It may be noted that a statement was made in Jatiya Sangsad by the ruling party on the carnage of Muslim minority in Gujarat in India. That was an internal affair of India, but Sangsad did not find it relevant to condemn the event in Iraq where thousands of innocent Iraqis were massacred by the coalition forces led by the United States.

What is the purpose of having parliament then if major international and national issues of importance are not debated there? Parliament is not meant for eulogising the performance of the leader of the house or discussing the speech of the president only.

The following suggestions are made for consideration in making parliament effective: a) The speaker should play an independent and neutral role; b) More time should be allocated to the members of the opposition to speak on national and international issues of importance; c) The Chief Whips of the ruling party and the opposition should be made effective and answerable to the speaker; d) The Prime Minister should answer the questions put up by any member of the parliament once a week; e) Parliamentary Standing Committees on budget and finance and public accounts should be headed by members from the opposition; f) All political parties in the parliament should conduct refresher courses for their legislators on the preparation of speeches, etiquette and manner, apart from rules of procedure and constitutional provisions. The lawmakers of the country should not turn this prestigious institution into an object of mockery by delivering only flattering or sycophantic speeches about their respective leaders. There is enough space outside for such speeches to be made for larger audiences as well.

Mohammad Amjad Hossain is a former diplomat.