Human Rights and Democracy at the End of Aspect in Bangladesh

Posted by admin on Aug 16, 2010 in Articles | 0 comments

Human Rights and Democracy at the end of aspect in Bangladesh

The political climate of the Country has been changing from the independence of Bangladesh. It got the independence from Pakistan in 1971 to protect and preserve the rights and freedom of its population which was on threat in Pakistan regime. In 1974 it becomes the member of United Nations and from that it is committed to uphold the UDHR and secure the rights of its citizens. The Country has a long history of military rule in various unexpected occasions but all these evident strongly proved strong desire of the citizens towards democratic process with due course of law. But the people of the sovereign always support the elected system which refers the parliamentary system and democracy. The people of Bangladesh always prefer and expect the democratic government which should come into power with due process of constitution after holding a credible election as per the constitutional mandate not in any other way. All classes of citizens desire that they should be governed by a government, which shall come with a general election and with the popularity of majority voters of Bangladesh, and they never expect any kinds of autonomous or non-elected authority in the name of Government.

Parliamentary elections, which were to take place in January 2007, were postponed due to violent disagreement between the two major political blocs over the preparations of the elections. On 11 January 2007, the President declared a state of emergency.

A new caretaker government under Chief Adviser Fakhruddin Ahmed was installed with the backing of the military. After the 5 years tenure of BNP (last) government the caretaker government has come into the power as the process of constitution with a lot of debatable persons. The country was in crisis of non-party or impartial person for the chair of the chief advisor of non-party caretaker government.

The first assembly of non-party caretaker government had oath on October 2006. But the rights and freedom of citizens were fully protected by the supreme law the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. However, the chief election commissioner appointed in the first time was the most disputed person though his appointment had legal authenticity.
But on that time with the bitter intervention of foreign diplomats in the internal politics of country the political climate had been changed as political calamity and therefore day by day the inside political atmosphere of the country became more uncertain. In the meantime the weakness of Presidential power finally turned off the hope-light of the nation. Unexpectedly the first assembly of Caretaker Government falls down on early January 2007 with an uncertain future of the country for impalpable plan of foreign diplomats (as demanded by media & specialists). EU considered this abnormal circumstance as their experiment on human right violation because where every day people’s life become more and more dangerous and the commission of EU addressed that they were monitoring the situation very seriously and human rights violation is sustainable in Bangladesh. By their intervention together with foreign diplomats the internal political atmosphere of the country turned away to an unpredictable disaster and the human rights faced the final stage inside the country. The non-party caretaker government assembly of the caretaker government broke down for their incompetence to an uncertain future of Country. The final disaster came with failure of free fair and credible and transparent election. The second military backed assembly of the caretaker government headed by Mr. Fakruddin Ahmed (former employee of World Bank) came into effect from 11 January 2007. In the meantime the people who always desire the democracy and freedom of citizens had lost their language by the proclamation of State Emergency on 11 January 2007. Military backed government took the power with trampling the hope and desire of democracy loved citizens and by burial of human rights and freedom of speech. With crystal violation of Constitution the semi-martial government starts their journey in the name of upholding and regaining the democracy in the state as well as to curb rampant corruption. Mr. Fokruddin becomes the chief adviser of the military-led government who has no constitutional legality as well as impartiality or popularity in Bangladesh.
The government is trying to preserve & protect the interest of foreign policy without caring the sovereignty of Bangladesh.
Incompetency of government taking the future of this country towards an unpredictable danger.

People’s are always being afraid of Join forces to be arrested without any constructive reason.

Now a day there is nothing like Human Rights & Fundamental Rights in Bangladesh rather the arbitrary operation of “The Emergency Power Ordinance 2007″.

Social, political & economical sectors are being destroyed through the enactment of various Laws without bothering the interest and undue effect of these laws.

Government is taking every action with the military backing where the image of our precious armed forces distinctly in question.
Government is playing with various sensitive issues which are not even possible for an elected government.

The people should demonstrate for securing the constitution and the sovereignty as well as the interest of citizens.

Save the country from foreign strategy,

Speak for the democracy,

Speak for the rights of citizens,

Speak against every illegitimate action of Government,

Speak for Human Rights,

Save the Country Save the Humanity.

Democracy in Singapore

Posted by admin on Aug 9, 2010 in Articles | 0 comments

Located at the southern tip of the Malay peninsula, Singapore is literally a ‘city-state’ comprised of six small islands with limited land area. Slightly more than 4 1/2 million people occupy and area about 3 1/2 times the size of Washington, DC.

After receiving their independence from British rule, that had been reestablished after World War II, Singapore, essentially an island nation, joined other island nations to become Malasia. This affiliation was short-lived and Singapore broke away and established a separate country in the mid 1960s.

A parliamentary democracy was set up, with a Westminster system, a unicameral government with only one Chamber. Executive power rests with the Cabinet, headed by the Prime Minister. The office of President is mainly a ceremonial one, but he does have limited veto powers on the use of national reserves and judiciary appointments. The Presidency is an elected position, but it has only been contested once since Singapore became a nation. The Parliament is the legislative branch of the government.

The Members of Parliament are either elected, non-constituency or nominated to their posts. The majority are elected to five year terms in a General Election. The MPs represent either Single Member Groups or Group Resentation Constituencies. There are 94 MPs; 84 elected Members, one non-constituency MP and nine Nominated MPs.

The Nominated MPs, not representing any political party, are appointed by the President for 2 1/2 year terms. The slate of appointees is drawn up by a Special Select Committee of Parliament headed by the Speaker.

There is essentially a one-party system controlled by the People’s Action Party (PAP), though there are other political parties; the Workers’ Party of Singapore, the Singapore Democratic Party and Singapore Democratic Alliance. Most analysts consider Singapore to be a procedural democracy, rather than a true democracy. The nation has also been described as a “hybrid regime made up of authoritarian and democratic parts.”

Though the elections have not been plagued by voter fraud and illegalities, it has been charged that the electoral system has been manipulated by the PAP. It has also been alledged that the courts are aligned with the PAP. In essense, The Republic of Singapore is authoritarian with only a superficial resemblance to a true democracy.

The legal system is descended from English Common Law, influenced by British Indian laws. PAP, the ruling party, rejects many of the democratic values laid out by the laws, accusing them of being ‘Western’ and not entirely suitable for Singapore. There are no jury trials. There is restricted freedom of speech in this multicultural, multiracial society. In 2005, three bloggers were convicted of sedition for posting racist remarks on the internet.

Criminal punishment ranges from heavy fines, to caning, to capital punishment for first degree murder and drug trafficing. Singapore has the highest execution rate per capita in the world.

Despite the heavy-handedness, the system seems to work for this city-state. Tourists report that the city is clean, modern, cosmopolitan and relatively crime-free. There is good shopping, fine restaurants, sights to see and a new casino to draw even more money form the tourist trade.

For more information on Singapore, visit http://www.singaporemicroblog.com/

President Obama Africa Needs Democracy and Development not Guns and Weapons

Posted by admin on Aug 2, 2010 in Articles | 0 comments

The US is undoubtedly the biggest arms exporter to Africa contributing to about 50% of all arms to the continent. It is under statement to say that arms exports to Africa, political instabilities, wars, economic underachievement and poverty are intractably linked and that African countries will be unable to achieve any economic development unless they achieve political stability. The continent is littered with hundreds of millions of small arms and light weapons even though South Africa and Egypt are the only countries on the continent with infrastructures that could support huge arms production. Tens of millions of Africans have died from the export of arms to the continent and several millions have been injured as a result of the wars fuelled by the arms exports. About 90% of all civilian casualties in the wars come from the use of small arms and light weapons. Besides, billions of dollars meant for economic and social development have been squandered over the years from diamond, gold, timber, coltan, cassiterite and oil profits to procure arms and fund the instabilities in the continent.

For decades we have witnessed the tragic and the devastating effects of wars on the continent fuelled by arms imports from US, UK, France, Russia, North Korea, China, former Soviet and Eastern European nations. Most of the arms exports to Africa are used for internal repression and external aggression. Some of these arms have found their way into rebel hands, organised criminals and bandits. The arms have been used by totalitarian regimes to hold back critical thinking in their countries. It is estimated that the continent has lost up to 500 billion dollars to arms imports alone while children have no access to education, water and health facilities. 

In the face of mounting poverty, malnourishments, diseases, lack of genuine democracy and civil wars what Africa need at this critical moment are not guns and weapons but the seed of genuine democracy and economic development. 

The failed state of Somalia where armed groups have been battling one another for 19 years should inform the president of the dangers of small arms and light weapons sales to the continent and the importance of banning arms exports to the continent.

The continued instabilities in the Great Lake Region and the constant arm struggles in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, and northern Uganda should also inform the President about the dangers arms shipments from America and Europe are posing to the continent. 

The genocide in Darfur cannot stop unless there are concrete efforts to obtain international arms ban against the Sudanese government and the rebel groups who are abducting, raping, terrorising, torturing and massacring the innocent people. In Nigeria where there is no civil war going on the state has used arms to kill about 20,000 of her mostly unarmed civilians. 

In Ethiopia millions of people face starvation every year while hundreds of millions of dollars are used to import arms. This explains why you should work with your allies to ban arms exports to the continent as you take office.

The widely forgotten wars in the Casamance Province of Senegal, Western Sahara, Ivory Coast, Niger and Burundi will negate any economic aid to those countries and territories unless arms shipments to both the governments and the rebels are ceased. 

The wars in Chad will not stop unless the flow of arms to the government and the rebels are cut. 

President Obama, please know that the ever present wars and the instabilities in the continent will make any economic aid less effective and less beneficial to the people.

I want to urge the President Obama to use his good office to help ban the sale of small arms that have been used to terrorise the people for quite so long. President Obama should encourage the other western countries notably the UK and France to also ban the sale of small arms to the continent. The UK and France together account for 10% of the total arms market in Africa. Their companies are heavily involved in the sale of arms that continue to destabilise the continent. 

The US should let her influence be bear on China who is increasingly ignoring all calls to halt arms sales to the continent. China in particular is the greatest obstacle to peace and stability as it is not democratic and does not respect international laws when it comes to her interests. China has continued to export arms to Sudan despite mounting evidence that the arms are being used to commit genocide in Darfur. In 2008 when the people of Zimbabwe were starving and was clear that Mugabe had lost the elections all that China could do to support the people and democracy was to ship arms to Mugabe’s repressive regime. Such actions by China, North Korea, Russia and other undemocratic nations must stop. They should be made to sign up to international laws banning and criminalising the sale of small arms to the continent.

President Obama should know that the waves of civil wars that hit and devastated Liberia, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, Congo, Chad, Central African Republic, Somalia, Uganda, Sudan, Angola, Niger and Guinea were made possible through the sale of small arms and light weapons to governments and rebels alike by western defence contractors and arms companies including US companies. These wars apart from its human cost have contributed to the destruction of roads, harbours, airports, railway lines, telecommunications, hospitals, schools and the livelihoods of the people. The wars have decimated regions, countries, communities and families. It has brought poverty, hunger and misery to the people on the continent. 

Mr. President, the beneficiaries of the wars are not the people but the corrupt politicians, rebel commanders, army generals, western companies, a shadow economy, governments and their allies who enrich themselves while the people face famine, poverty, homelessness, unemployment, diseases, have no access to health, education and have become refugees within and outside their countries. Besides, billions of dollars meant for economic and social development have been squandered over the years from diamond, gold, timber, coltan, cassiterite and oil profits to procure arms and fund the instabilities on the continent.

As you asked Americans to choose hope over fear in your speech so do I ask you to ask African leaders to choose democracy and economic development over dictatorship, arms, conflicts and political repression. It is time for US, Europe, Russia and China to act together and call their defence contractors and arm companies to order and give Africa peace.

Mr. President, please know that so far as people in Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Sudan, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Gambia, Tunisia, Cameroon and Uganda cannot democratically change their leaders there will be the constant threat of wars and instabilities in these countries and the desire by the people to overthrow these undemocratic leaders. 

Mr. President please reach out to these tyrants and encourage them to peacefully give up their hold on power. Tell them to unban opposition parties, unban civil and political activists, free political prisoners and organise free and fair elections. President Obama, please do more to encourage them to embark on democratic reforms long needed on the continent. 

Let the leaders understand that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Let them understand that politics is about winning and loosing and that it should be possible for opposition parties to win elections and hell does not need to break loose. The presence of such dictators is not only harmful to the image and the development of the continent but a major factor why impoverishment and underdevelopment is prevalent on the continent.

How on earth should a person continue to rule for 30 years when he is not a monarch? Even monarchs sometimes abdicate in favour of change. Isn’t it? Are these kleptocrats monarchs? Why has Gaddafi of Libya been in power for 39 years now? And Omar Bongo of Gabon has ruled for 31 years, Teodoro Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea 28 years, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe 28 years, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt 27 years, Paul Biya of Cameroon 26 years, Yoweri Museveni of Uganda 22 years, Omar Al Bashir of Sudan 19 years, Iddriss Derby of Chad 17 years, Yahya Jammeh of Gambia 14 years. Tunisian president has just announced that he is going to rule for life. Are these tyrants monarchs? I do not understand. Mr. President I do not understand. 

Tens of millions of Africans have died from the export of small arms and light weapons to the continent. Please Mr. President, at this critical moment in world history what Africa need is democracy and economic development not arms. Help mobilise international support to ban small arms and light weapons exports to Africa. Encourage African leaders to adopt democracy and to embark on social and economic development that will benefit the people in the continent.

We know USA can help. So please help.

Islam, Judaism And Christianity, On Human Rights And Democracy?

Posted by admin on Jul 26, 2010 in Articles | 0 comments

Islam, Judaism and Christianity, on human rights and  democracy?

By:  H.A. Yahya, Professor of Sociology

 This state is not unique for Muslim faith, religion through history was (and still is)  a force to stabilize cultures, as a force for hostility toward others. European wars were incited by religion. That’s in theory, the west perceptions of Islam is that Islam induce suicide bombing culture, which is not true. The issue of martyrdom  is different from suicide bombers, and  Muslims have a difficulty to distinguish between the two in recent years to satisfy the new world order and its leading force, the USA, especially after September 11.  where human rights and democracy were put in the back seat.

 Need hierarchy motivates people change according to their perceived needs. Lower-order needs (such as food and shelter and of course democracy) are more important motivators and must be mostly filled before needs for peer acceptance and self-actualization become powerful motivators.

 I believe that not making cultural adjustment is usually a mistake. However,  the culture allows foreigners more latitude than it does to its own citizens. In such cases, less adjustment is necessary. As for western values, little adjustment is necessary but difficult to apply. What may help in this case, is  a core state plays the representative of western power to incite cultural changes, such a state is expected to be Muslim country with western thought.     

 Associations and organizations should have goals, and processes to make itself for the benefits of Muslims, as the Jewish associations. The Jews are far ahead on any other religion, in taking care of Jews anywhere on Earth. No other religion followers resemble them in management and leadership. And I believe, they should be commended for their successful efforts.

The idea of intellectuals and secularists is very dangerous one to the theologians in every religion. In the Jewish faith, in the Christian faith, and in the Islamic faith. They all share intolerance, lack of Judgment and ignorance of ideas might unite between them. Politics is riding almost all followers of the three mentioned religions. Their followers anywhere are drugged by the teachings of their clergy men, as they are the only followers of God who will open his paradise for them and denies other religions from Heaven, but to expel them in Hell.

In Christian faith, Jesus Image in one church, is different from other churches.  Catholic beliefs are different from those of Protestant beliefs. And both are misused by the Old Testament, or the New one.   

In the Jewish faith, however, it took a very different direction, Jews have understood early the power of mind, through Espinoza, Marx, and Durkheim, to control circumstances of the modern world through Psychology, Medicine, Audio-visual Media, Press,  and attorneys at law, in addition to business finance and banking were the means to control people.  These fields were observed, as controlled in the United States by Jews. Psychology departments and tests writings, have changed the negative image of Jews in America after the 1940s and the Holocaust.  Politically they supported those who may support Jewish goals, such as creating and supporting the State of Israel. They were very successful in that field. Most Americans follow blindly this direction and support Israel financially and materially through arms weaponry and advanced technology.

Both Christian and Jewish faiths were united early as Judeo-Christian faith to stand opposing the religion of Islam.  Muslims are not less in their position from other religions. All religions share conflict with the other. And none is proved true in their allegations. But as I see it, there should be a conciliation or normalization by reciprocal recognition between religions to reduce the tension among their followers worldwide. Exchanged misconceptions about each other may close the gap between religions in terms of human rights and Democracy. If we forget the false assumption about Muslim terrorists perception. (644 words)       

Democracy is not Correctly Defined

Posted by admin on Jul 19, 2010 in Articles | 0 comments

Democracy not correctly defined

We must accept that democracy has not been correctly defined. It is not government of the people. As set of people have taken up politics as a profession, trade, calling and employment and they are the rulers. Therefore, as and when a government is formed after election, that government is not of the people because these ruling people are not from amongst the people. They are the nominees of the political parties and only political parties know on what consideration these people have been selected and nominated for election. It is not a government by the people and that is the reason the people in the government are not working for the people. The people are simply voters who are called once in a five years aor so and they are directed to cast votes in favour of the candidates who have been allowed to stand as candidates. When these people cast their vote, their work is finished and they are pushed back to suffer for an other term of five years or so. The people who form government never work for the welfare of the people of the country nor they are committed as such. That is the reason in most of the democracies in the world the people in power are not working as public servants and they never allow the people to turn as masters of the country. Democracy is just a name and therefore, the ruler’s work with a rod in their hand and they utilize all power through police, courts and through jails. The people get only those rights which these rulers give them and nothing more. The word of democracy, fundamental rights, masters and public servants are just in books and those are never brought into practice. Therefore, we shall have admit that democracy which is present in all the countries could be called or defined as a government of a few, by a few and for a few and therefore, the common people should try to live like slaves as they had been under rajas, maharajas or under the imperialists. They shall have to wait for true democracy for another century.

On Revitalizing Parliamentary Democracy

Posted by admin on Jul 12, 2010 in Articles | 0 comments

Parliamentary democracy was adopted in India after a purposive and elaborate debate among the founding fathers of India’s constitution. The members of the constituent assembly adopted the constitution with the conviction that it best suited to the heterogeneous character of Indian society, while the world expressed scepticism about India’s ability to operate a democratic system successfully 1.

Parliament has three important functions-to make laws, to be a forum for deliberations on important issues of governance and to enforce accountability of the executive to the people. Constitutional authorities such as Sir William Black Stone consider the law-making powers of the Parliament as the true index of Parliamentary sovereignty. Further, he says that the Parliament has “Sovereign and uncontrollable authority in making, confirming, enlarging, restraining, abrogating, repealing, reviving, and expounding of laws, concerning matters of all possible denominations, ecclesiastical, or temporal, civil, military, maritime, or criminal”2.

Indian Parliament, in the early years, discharged its function of charting out the path of social engineering with the utmost sense of responsibility, in the process of earning the admiration and respect of the people3. Healthy Debate, discussions, more number of sittings, spending more time for legislative business are considered as key features of Parliamentary democracy is now being overshadowed by uproar, chaos, conflicts and forced adjournments even for unimportant reasons and issues. Further, in the history of the Indian Parliament that a Parliament session was abandoned, the monsoon session of the Parliament in 2008, or frozen for reasons that are unclear.

Many MPs don’t attend the house for days together; the clever ones sign the attendance registered and slip out, ensuring that they don’t miss out on their daily allowance even if they miss crucial debates. Many others feel the prick of consciousness and turn up in the house and do nothing: In the present 14th Lok Sabha 32 MPs are still observing a vow of silence, waiting to participate in their maiden debate; 37 MPs are yet to table a question. Many more take their seats in the august house just to add to the decibel levels without contributing in any way to debates or discussions. There was general opinion that government, opposition and other political parties are not giving due importance to Parliament.

There has been a trend of decline in terms of the number and duration of sittings of Parliament after the period of the first Lok Sabha during 1952-1957. This trend of deterioration has been not only in terms of sittings or ‘hours of labour’ but also the quality and length of the debates and the legislative outcomes. There were 677 sittings (3,784 hours) during the first Lok Sabha (1952-57). This is the highest recorded count of the number of sittings of the House of the People. The Rajya Sabha, meanwhile, had 565 sittings during 1952-57. During the period 1971-1977 (when Parliament had its tenure extended by a year), the Lok Sabha had 613 sittings (4,071 hours).

This, however, cannot be considered to have been a positive trend, as it included the period of the Emergency. The average number of sittings of the Lok Sabha during 1952-1957 was 135 days a year. In 1956, the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha sat for 151 and 113 days respectively. This is the highest number of sittings of Parliament till today. In 2006, Parliament sat for 77 days. In 2007, however, this declined in the Lok Sabha to 66 days, marking the lowest number of days in the last few years with the exception of 2004, which was an election year.

In 2008 Parliament sat for only 46 days. This trend is disheartening, and will inevitably erode public trust over the institution. There is a long-pending proposal that the minimum number of days of sitting for the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha be fixed as 120 and 100 respectively, so as to ensure that Parliament is able to transact its business and carry forward its responsibilities in an optimal manner3.

The recently concluded second part of the 14th session of the 14th Lok Sabha witnessed a loss of nearly 21 hours in interruptions and adjournments. But Parliament adopted a resolution unanimously condemning the heinous attack in Mumbai by terrorists4. It is significant to note that during this session total of eight bills were passed in Lok Sabha in just over 15 minutes. These included five bills in the revised list of business and four under the supplementary agenda circulated later5. Some of the bills rejected by the Standing Committee were also passed in the Parliament. Similarly Rajya Sabha had also passed 3 bills in about 20 minutes, without any proper discussions in the Parliament. Lok Sabha had no time to discuss the bills because it met 46 days only, the lowest in the history of the Parliamentary democracy and a far cry from the norm of having atleast 100 sittings6.

The quality of debate is linked to the quality of MPs, says constitution expert Subash Kashyap. In the first Lok Sabha, lawyers and barristers formed the largest professional group members, this automatically ensured speakers of a certain quality such as Jawaharlal Nehru and N C Chatterjee (father of present Lok Sabha speaker Somnath Chatterjee) to name a couple. In one such debate, he recalls, there was much hair-splitting over which word-incite or provoke-should be used for a particular legislation.

In the 1950s, even bitterly contested issues never degenerated into abuse leading to chaos. MPs saw one another as political rivals, not enemies. In those days several lesser-known MPs specialized in a particular topic and were heard with seriousness. For instance, Uma Charan Pattnaik, an independent MP from Orissa’s Ganjam constituency in the first two Lok Sabha elections, “He was an expert on defence matters. When he spoke there was pin-drop silence,”.

Experts say the quality of debate declined after the third Lok Sabha. The process of democratization has created a new crop of leaders whose intellectual and political capabilities are below par. “They prefer to shout than debate”, as pointed out by political scientist Imtiaz Ahmed. Besides, as a 2004 study by Bangalore-based independent watchdog Public Affairs Centre show, 23.2% of those elected to Parliament face criminal charges ranging from murder to extortion and rape. Such MPs are unlikely to be good debaters7.

It is worthwhile to note that, according to India Today report8, published recently, some 32 MPs, so far, never participated in any debate in the Parliament, which includes senior most members also. While debating the issues such as poverty and hunger in Parliament, especially the House of People, the attendance was very low. On May 5, 2007 only six members were present, initially, in the House of People, which discussed the eradication of hunger in India. The attendance was less than one per cent. Later six more members joined in the discussion. Totally 12 members attended the discussion, of which 7 belongs to Congress, 2 from Left parties, and one each from BJP, BJDand TDP12. Similarly, in the month of December 2007 the on going National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme was discussed in the Lok Sabha, and this time the attendance was 16 only. Because of lack of quorum the speaker adjourned the house.

It is significant as well as worthwhile to mention here that, in the 2007 Global Hunger Index (GHI) out of 118 countries list, India placed in a dismantle position of 94th rank- behind Ethiopia. Ethiopia worked better at reducing hunger than India did. Pakistan ranks ahead of India, too, at 88. China logs in at 47. All our South Asian neighbours do better than India on this index, except Bangladesh. None of these countries boasts an economy growing at 9 per cent a year. When the sensex fall of several hundred points the Finance Minister comes forward and soothes the market nerves. But no one, the representatives, came forward or reacted to calm the nation when India hit the 94th rank in the GHI9.

Everybody accepted the fact that the Parliament has not been functioning up to the expectations of the people and the people have also gradually loosing their faith over the system as well as Parliamentary democracy. The following are some of the facts about how the Parliament worked in the last year, 2008:

1. Union government spent Rs.440 Cr. for conducting business of the Parliament.

2. Rs.23,083 being spent for conducting one minute of the business of the Parliament.

3. Parliament met only 46 days in the year 2008, which is lowest in the history of the Parliamentary democracy .

4. Speaker and Prime Minister speech were also disturbed.

5. Speaker left Lok Sabha in a huff because of unable to maintain the order of the house.

6. Prime Minister was not allowed to introduce his Council of Ministers.

7. 32 MPs, so far, never raised any issues or participated in any debate in the Parliament.

8. 37 MPs never submitted any kind of questions, in Question Hour or Zero Hour, in the Parliament.

9. Lok Sabha passed, in December 2008, 8 bills in 17 minutes without any proper debate.

10. Rajya Sabha had also passed 3 bills in 20 minutes.

11. Bill rejected by the Standing Committee of the Parliament was also passed.

Quality of debate and discussions are the hall mark of Parliamentary Democracy seems to be unavailable at present. Everyone agrees there’s a need for more informed debate in Parliament. Imtiaz Ahmad suggested that rookie MPs should schooled in the art of parliamentary affairs. A short course can help10. Strict enforcement of Code of Conduct for MPs, electing representatives with some professional background or formal education, are essential for proper working of Parliament in India. More than any measures sense of commitments from: i) people representatives, ii) leaders of all the political parties will make the Parliament to work more meaningfully and purposefully.

Reference:

1. Somnath Chatterjee, “Six Decades of Parliamentary Democracy”, The Hindu, August 15, 2007.p.4.

2. P.C.Alexander, “Raising a Question on Question Hour”, Deccan Chronical, May 20, 2008.p.6.

3. India Today, Jan. 19, 2009.p.65; Vinod Bhanu, “Abandoning a Parliament Session”, The Hindu, Sep.13, 2008.p.12.

4. The Hindu, Dec. 24, 2008.p.12.

5. The Hindu, Dec. 24, 2008.p.13.

6. Times of India, Dec. 28, 2008.p.8.

7. Avijit Ghosh, “Where’s the debate in this din of democracy?”, Times of India, Dec. 28, 2008.p.8.

8. India Today, Jan.21, 2009.p.18.

9. P.Sakthivel, “Indian Parliamentary Democracy in Turmoil”, The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol.LXIX, No.3. July-Sep. 2008.pp.519-529.

10. Times of India, Dec. 28, 2008.p.8.