Row over front row seats

FOR the first few days, the opposition sought to justify its boycotting of the ongoing budget session, complaining that they were not given adequate number of front row seats (FRSs) in the parliament. Since the end of the first session, they have been pushing hard for more FRSs as a precondition for joining the second session.
The chief whips of the treasury and the opposition met the Speaker over the issue before the current session opened. Then, the Speaker allotted one more FRS to the opposition raising the tally to five, and urged the opposition to join the budget session. He also made it clear that there was no more scope of increasing the FRSs for the opposition.
In immediate reaction, the opposition whip let it be known through the media that the dispensation of five FRSs to them just fell short of being `respectable' and they would come back to parliament if a `respectable' number of FRSs were allotted to them. He however did not elaborate on the `respectable' number of FRSs.
As the squabble over the FRSs goes on, a string of interpretations on the opposition's boycotting of the parliament are heard from various quarters. Some view it as a strategic ploy on the part of the opposition, buying time to settle its internal feud over nomination of the deputy opposition leader in the parliament.
Some others are apprehensive of a yet-unlikely prospect of the opposition's reverting to the old culture of boycotting parliament on this petty excuse. This apprehension is not totally irrelevant. It remains a fact that the opposition has yet to come to terms with their last election debacle. And given their miniscule position, they might not quite feel confident about playing a strong role in the parliament.
Obviously, the opposition seeks to play the matter of FRSs as an issue. Does that lend them a strong, sensible ground to stay out of the parliament? Indeed, not. As per convention, the opposition was allotted four FRSs. Now, they have been given one seat more than what is due proportionately to their numerical standing in parliament.
They, however, do not talk about their numerical strength, but vaguely demand an `honourable presence' (?) in parliament. Asked about the opposition's stand, the hon'ble Speaker said he could not yet make out what the opposition actually indicates by `respectable FRS allotment'.
He, however, suggested that they should come to highlight their demand in the parliament rather than raise tempest in a tea-cup outside of the parliament, and that it would then be possible to address their demand. But, the latest statement of the opposition chief whip that they would not join the budget session until the government settles Begum Zia's house issue in addition to allotting the `respectable' number of FRSs in parliament represents a new turn in the opposition's outlook.
The treasury takes the inflicting of a new pre-condition with surprise. With the hardening of opposition's attitude, the conscious citizenry tends to make a few scathing remarks on their sense of accountability to their electorates. What of their tall promises they made before the election? Who will project the grievances of their constituents? Did the electorates vote them to boycott parliament?
Even some of the opposition admirers have voiced disagreement with their boycott tactic for one, or two FRSs. The other day veteran political scientist, Dr. Emaj Uddin, adversely reacted to the opposition's obstinacy. He said the opposition could have rendered a great service to the country by focusing on the serious national issues like Tipaimukh, Asian Highway etc. in the parliament.
The opposition is now expected to demonstrate political maturity leaving aside all such matters that do not have significant bearing on our national interests. For now, they should give up their ego play centring on the FRSs. After all, the FRSs are not what the elected representatives should attend the parliament for. Basically, it is `public interests' that they are mandated to uphold in parliament. And they could play that part from a `back seat' as well.
Not long ago, one may recall, the opposition assured the treasury bench of their co-operation. In the same spirit, they did a few positives like attending the cabinet's swearing-in ceremony, as well as the inaugural and the concluding sittings of the first session. Particularly, the opposition leader delivered a significant speech in the concluding sitting of the last session, which was widely commended as a pleasant exercise in our parliamentary culture.
But, the opposition's adding of new pre-conditions seems to be clouding the prospect of their coming to parliament. It is asking the government to do what seems unlikely to be done now. Take, for instance, their new pre-condition to settle the `cantonment house' issue, which is pending with the HC, and cannot possibly be settled now, as it is a sub-judice matter. So, the nagging FRSs row appears to be a façade behind which there might be some hidden thinking(?)

Md. Ali Akbar is a Deputy Secretary to the Government.