Dr. Md. Shairul Mashreque :
The contemporary parliamentary democracy in a seemingly hazy political landscape like suffers from the process of depersonalization as intolerance among the politicians has reaching a dizzying height. Distressingly parliamentary institutions in developing areas has somewhat affected by distortion-ridden political culture. Parliamentary participation has been going through the process of depersonalization with damaging effects on society. The showdown with bickering and squabbling hit the news headlines and become the talk of the town. The parliamentary affair now-a day has become a sad overtone frustrating the voters and tax payers. The voters as public participators elect parliament and a large sum of public money for maintaining this costly institution draws from tax. They do not expect any erratic behaviour from their representatives that may tarnish the image of this institution.
The parliament is thought to be a house for national debate on the vital national and global issues. The participants in the debate as people’s representatives are supposed to have oratory skills for expressing views cogently and argumentatively. The conscious citizens appreciate the art of parliamentary debate and normal practice in the deliberation process. Our law makers perhaps know parliamentary culture and traditions with pre-existing norms and courtesy that developed overtime in western democracies.
South Asian syndrome of parliamentary pandemonium has been well reflected in the way the parliamentarians conduct themselves under the whirlpool of emotional predisposition far away from sense and sensibility, reason and rationality. With zero tolerance the parliament is sliding into anarchy with some members showing strength without any qualm of decency and decorum. The unmitigated confrontational politics adds to the current level of political intolerance that makes parliament a rumpus with rolling noise and warring gesture of some members comparable to terrifying dances of ghosts.
Parliamentary debate is of course animated with the participation of the main opposition. We welcome the opposition that staged a come back after a long lay off. But the culture of recurring boycott and repeated walk out is not good for the proper functioning of parliament. Both treasury and opposition benches are locked into unscheduled debate blaming one another for various incidents taking place across the country over the last few days. Deeply involved in blame game some quarrelsome members made a terrible show with slang in local dialect. They have been bogged down to ever increasingly rowdiness and rusticism. The speaker usually tries to stem the rot. The people as voters ‘could not but looked on helplessly as silent spectators to such antics’ of some politicians.’
This is the indication that our old culture continues. ‘We have progressed very little from the mindset of “winner takes it all and loser has nothing to gain”. ‘The treasury bench and the opposition still remain far from the desired level of interaction and communication expected in a healthy parliamentary democracy.’ The opposition hardly sit in the house and take politics to the street. When they join parliamentary discussion the members of the ruling parties look daggers at them. Some trouble mongers both in the government side and opposition set up the examples of poking quarrel to make the house chaotic and the cockpit of open confrontation.
The speaker must have a finger in the pie to bury the hatchet. He must try to hold unruly members of the parliament back from corrosive practices. He is supposed to take immediate action to stop revilement, abuse and backlash harassment. He should be the man of the moment giving a stern warning to unruly members with dire consequence. The house is not a place for clash shouting with filthy words. Only Paltan or open space is a suitable venue for fight and mudsling.
Even if politicians in the south Asians countries become tolerant in the politics outside the house perhaps in open space or in the street they will definitely nurture democratic tolerance. Despite the fact that the speaker may rise to the occasion to make the parliament effective with the modicum of parliamentary discipline and etiquette the high level intolerance in the hazardous territory of politics is difficult to shun.
The contemporary parliamentary democracy in a seemingly hazy political landscape like suffers from the process of depersonalization as intolerance among the politicians has reaching a dizzying height. Distressingly parliamentary institutions in developing areas has somewhat affected by distortion-ridden political culture. Parliamentary participation has been going through the process of depersonalization with damaging effects on society. The showdown with bickering and squabbling hit the news headlines and become the talk of the town. The parliamentary affair now-a day has become a sad overtone frustrating the voters and tax payers. The voters as public participators elect parliament and a large sum of public money for maintaining this costly institution draws from tax. They do not expect any erratic behaviour from their representatives that may tarnish the image of this institution.
The parliament is thought to be a house for national debate on the vital national and global issues. The participants in the debate as people’s representatives are supposed to have oratory skills for expressing views cogently and argumentatively. The conscious citizens appreciate the art of parliamentary debate and normal practice in the deliberation process. Our law makers perhaps know parliamentary culture and traditions with pre-existing norms and courtesy that developed overtime in western democracies.
South Asian syndrome of parliamentary pandemonium has been well reflected in the way the parliamentarians conduct themselves under the whirlpool of emotional predisposition far away from sense and sensibility, reason and rationality. With zero tolerance the parliament is sliding into anarchy with some members showing strength without any qualm of decency and decorum. The unmitigated confrontational politics adds to the current level of political intolerance that makes parliament a rumpus with rolling noise and warring gesture of some members comparable to terrifying dances of ghosts.
Parliamentary debate is of course animated with the participation of the main opposition. We welcome the opposition that staged a come back after a long lay off. But the culture of recurring boycott and repeated walk out is not good for the proper functioning of parliament. Both treasury and opposition benches are locked into unscheduled debate blaming one another for various incidents taking place across the country over the last few days. Deeply involved in blame game some quarrelsome members made a terrible show with slang in local dialect. They have been bogged down to ever increasingly rowdiness and rusticism. The speaker usually tries to stem the rot. The people as voters ‘could not but looked on helplessly as silent spectators to such antics’ of some politicians.’
This is the indication that our old culture continues. ‘We have progressed very little from the mindset of “winner takes it all and loser has nothing to gain”. ‘The treasury bench and the opposition still remain far from the desired level of interaction and communication expected in a healthy parliamentary democracy.’ The opposition hardly sit in the house and take politics to the street. When they join parliamentary discussion the members of the ruling parties look daggers at them. Some trouble mongers both in the government side and opposition set up the examples of poking quarrel to make the house chaotic and the cockpit of open confrontation.
The speaker must have a finger in the pie to bury the hatchet. He must try to hold unruly members of the parliament back from corrosive practices. He is supposed to take immediate action to stop revilement, abuse and backlash harassment. He should be the man of the moment giving a stern warning to unruly members with dire consequence. The house is not a place for clash shouting with filthy words. Only Paltan or open space is a suitable venue for fight and mudsling.
Even if politicians in the south Asians countries become tolerant in the politics outside the house perhaps in open space or in the street they will definitely nurture democratic tolerance. Despite the fact that the speaker may rise to the occasion to make the parliament effective with the modicum of parliamentary discipline and etiquette the high level intolerance in the hazardous territory of politics is difficult to shun.
(Dr. Md. Shairul Mashreque, professor, department of Public administration, Chittagong University)
