Nomination
of women is undemocratic
Barrister
M. Moksadul Islam
Article 11 of our Constitution
states that "The Republic shall be a democracy … in which effective
participation by the people through their elected representative in
administration at all levels shall be ensured". Moreover under
Article 65(2) of our Constitution a Member of the Parliament must be
'elected … from single territorial constituency by direct election'.
About a half of
our population are women and without any doubt their voice should be
heard for our own good. Participation of women in all spheres of national
life has been described by our Constitution as a fundamental principle
of the state policy (Article 10). Another fundamental principle of state
is that it will encourage special representation, inter alia, by women
in the local government institutions (Article 9). To formulate a theory
for direct election for the women parliamentarians may not be an easy
one and would certainly cause conflict with the regular members. However
any attempt by the government to create rubber stamp Parliamentarians
should be utterly rejected by the people. This issue need to be addressed
in a broader perspective.
Understandably any
provision for a limited number of regular seats to be reserved only
for the women parliamentarians may not be acceptable to many diehard
politicians. Direct election with the regular member or members would
certainly create conflict of interest between the members. However if
we can identify the causes where women representation is very much needed
e.g. dowry, women education, etc. and directly elect a woman with the
regular member or members for those specific purposes only. And regular
member or members will have exclusive jurisdiction in all other areas
then there should not be any problem in directly electing a woman member
from a 'single territorial constituency' as envisages in Article 65(2).
For this specific purpose a 'single territorial constituency' can consist
of one or more regular 'single territorial constituency'. A woman member
should be advised to avoid other areas where the regular members will
have exclusive jurisdiction
The provision for
'reserved seat' for 30 or 45 in the name of so called women empowerment
is absurd as it goes against all norms of democracy. This nomination
or selection process may also lead to nepotism and there is every possibility
that many innocent women would be forced to submit themselves to the
trap of the unscrupulous politicians. Parliamentarians nominated for
the 'reserved seats' not only lacks any constituency to serve but also
lacks accountability to any citizen of the country. These reserved women
parliamentarians will have no 'single territorial constituency' as envisaged
in Article 65(2) of the Constitution.
There is nothing
wrong when an exception is made for something (for example Article 45
which modifies fundamental rights in respect of disciplinary force or
Art. 47 which made provisions for some exceptions to the Fundamental
Rights) provided it is not arbitrary and guided by rules. In one hand
probably our Constitution is the only Constitution which defines democracy
(Art. 11), on the other hand it is full of contradictions and sometimes
it is really difficult to find consistency between the Articles. For
example it is really hard to equate Article 46 (which provides provision
for indemnification) with the provisions of Fundamental Rights described
in Part III of our Constitution; and in many places undemocratic theories
are formulated only to favour party politics at the cost of democracy.
For example insertion of Chapter IIA in Part IV of our Constitution
which created provision for Non-Party Care-Taker Government and most
importantly Article 70 which strictly restricts a member to cast vote
against his political party or to decide against leadership and the
same also prohibits floor crossing.
There is no provision
in our Constitution which supports indirect election, however, in 10th
amendment Clause 3 of Article 65 in contradiction with Clause 2 of the
same made a temporary provision for 30 'reserved seats' in the Parliament
exclusively for women folks who were elected by the three hundred regular
elected members. This temporary provision expired on 14th July 2001.
However, present government has decided in principle to amend (14th
amendment) our Constitution and increase the number of reserve seats
for women to 45. Neither they will be directly elected nor will they
have any 'single territorial constituency'.
The provision for
thirty reserved seats was first enacted when autocratic regime was in
power and present government is attempting to do the same under the
guise of absolute majority, backed by Article 70. This absolute majority
has probably made our government blind and people are seeing, at least
to some extent, similarity between a government with absolute majority
and autocratic regime.
If the purpose of
creating exclusive 'reserve seats' for our women folks is only to address
the women problem in general then we do not need 30 or 45 rubber stamps
because that purpose can well be served through the existing 'Ministry
of Women & Children Affairs'. Each and every one of the 45 women
Parliamentarians will apparently have the jurisdiction covering the
entire country. As a result they will not server any purpose as everyone's
responsibility is no one's responsibility and as none will have any
territorial jurisdiction no one can be held responsible for any thing.
On top political doctrine of 'collective responsibility' has no place
in our politics.
In the above premises
the idea of reserve seats for our women folks is completely eyewash
and also a phoney idea formulated to divert the attention from the real
issue. It may not be wrong to say that any provision for reserve seats
for women parliamentarians is an insult to our women and should simply
be rejected immediately by people from all walks of life as it certainly
violates the fabric of democracy and as such our Constitution.
Barrister M. Moksadul
Islam is an advocate of Supreme Court of Bangladesh.