The EU is a unique body. Its members are sovereign states who have decided to pool their sovereignty in some key areas of government. These are areas where it is in their joint interest to act together. Like any government, the EU has a legislative branch, an executive branch, and an independent judiciary. These are supported and complemented by a number of other institutions.

The powers of the EU institutions are derived from its founding treaties which have been freely negotiated by member states, and which have been ratified individually by each country. In policy areas not covered by the treaties, member states are free to exercise their sovereignty.

The Council of the EU is the main decision making body. It is the voice of the member states, consisting of ministers from each one, and has both, a legislative function which it shares with the EP, and also an executive function which it shares with the European Commission. The European Commission (EC) is the executive that is independent of the governments, and is the institution which represents the interest of the Union as a whole.

The responsibilities of the EP have increased over the years since 1979, when voters throughout the Union states directly elected its members. The principal function of the Parliament is to adopt, in a process called "co-decision" with the council, the draft legislation submitted to them by the EC. The EP and the Council of the EU work together in a way similar to that of the two chambers in a national legislature.

EU leadership is gradually moving towards integration of the member states into a single entity. As already mentioned earlier, voters throughout the entire territory of EU directly elect the EP members.The MPs of the EP do not sit in national groups, but in pan-European formations. The present Parliament, elected for five years in June 2004, has 786 members representing the 27 EU countries.

Keeping that working model in mind, if we consider the formation of a South Asian Parliament, it is a question of how effective that institution could be in achieving the goal of sharing respective advantages to compensate for the weaknesses, and for maximizing the benefits of the people of the entire region under the existing circumstances.

The Council of the EU sits a minimum of 4 times with the heads of the governments. In addition, innumerable meetings are held at the ministerial level, discussing all types of issues as and when they crop up. The Saarc summit of the heads of governments of the member countries only sits once every year, but is mostly pomp without much effectiveness.

The meetings have, more or less, a predetermined agenda and outcome, without substantial meaningful worth to the people of the region. The ministry level meetings are rare, and are not very effective either.

Unlike the EU, the Saarc secretariat generally does not have much responsibility, as Saarc summits do not provide sufficient jobs or policy guidelines for implementation.

Under the circumstances, there is no scope for the South Asian Parliament to be as effective as the EP, which is given an agenda by the EU and the EC to deal with. So, there remains the question about the function of the South Asian Parliament when there is minimal agenda created by the Saarc summit and forwarded by the Saarc secretariat.

Does the leadership of the Saarc countries focus on following a similar line as the EU, for an ultimate merger, in the long run, into the United States of South Asian Countries, where every country would have individual identity and sovereignty but would enjoy common economic benefits?

In reality, member states are more concerned about safeguarding their own identities along with individual interests, sometimes even at the cost of others. This has made it difficult to formulate concrete programs agreed to by all member states.

The move towards ultimate merger is viewed with suspicion by most countries, which think that it would be at the cost of their sovereignty, and efforts are made to avoid the same at all times.

At this stage, the recently concluded Safma's (South Asian Free Media Association) Parliamentary Forum-II conference held on June 3 to 4 at Shimla, India, may be mentioned.

Mr. Yashwant Sinha, the former external affairs minister of India, said in his speech in that conference: "Despite centuries of rivalry and war, the countries of Europe have submerged their differences and reconciled with their past. They now live as good neighbours and are making progress together. The nations of South East Asia have come together to form the highly successful Asean. All over the world, countries contiguous to each other are coming together and forming strong alliances. But, here in South Asia, after two decades of existence, Saarc remains a non-starter. If we are determined to remain an exception to the global trend I have just mentioned it will increasingly be at the cost of the 1.5 billion people who live in South Asia, and who would remain deprived of the benefits of increased trade, economic ties and cultural exchanges."

In the same conference, Mr. K. K. Katyal, President, Safma, said during his deliberations: "Parliament members have a dual role. They, on the one hand, represent the people's aspirations, concerns, sentiments and, on the other, seek to prompt the governments to formulate policies to serve the best interests of their electors."

It is evident that Saarc should be made more effective in order to bring all its member states closer to cooperating with each other, with a view to sharing our strengths and weaknesses to provide maximum benefit to the 1.5 billion people living in the region.

It is also obvious that members of parliament of the member states, who are effective links between people and government, are in the best position to break the ice, in this case by pursuing their respective governments to promote regional cooperation issues. In case it is necessary for any particular issue, they are in a better position to motivate the people too.

This has necessitated creation of an institutional interactive mechanism for parliamentarians of the region, with the ultimate objective of having a South Asian Parliament. But, for reasons already described, the formation of Sap will not be able to serve any meaningful purpose at this stage.

As such, the conference in Shimla (Safma's Parliamentary Forum-II, June 2 to 3, 2007) suggested stage-by-stage transformation, and the action plan proposed includes:

Creation of an Intra-Parliamentary Union in South Asia.

Creation of Sap.

Activation of Saarc speakers' forum.

Setting up of Sap as a deliberative and consultative body, not as a legislative body, to begin with.

It may be concluded that Sap may be an idea at this stage, but it should be materialized in the not too distant future. If we take too long a time to do something tangible Saarc would lose whatever importance it still retains, it may fail to maintain the trust of the people about its usefulness, and the organization may become totally irrelevant.

It is felt that the Saarc leadership should decide quickly on how they can make the organization more effective, and whether they would like to have assistance of the parliaments in this respect, to achieve what had all along been expected of the organization by the people of the region.

G.M Qader is a former Member of Parliament, Bangladesh.