There is a widely held belief in contemporary politics that the electorate is deprived a real choice when presented with ballot boxes.
This universally applicable principle stems from the narrowing of the political spectrum at elections, representatives using the rhetoric of disagreement to conceal their agreement on major policies in line with what is perceived as safe ground, and the populace being disenfranchised from its leaders who monopolise power. The false choices present the irreconcilable conundrum of having parliaments mired in polluted bureaucracy and serving an ever-decreasing administrative function.
In a country such as Bangladesh, where the government comprises over three quarters of a parliament dictated by the doctrine of voting along party lines that castrates everyone, the opposition – part of the coalition last term, in possession of cabinet positions this term – being little more than ineffective window dressing necessary to apply a veneer of democracy, influential stakeholders being excluded from the system of governance, and the people’s voice and will being suppressed and dismissed, the centralisation of power in the hands of the head of government and her select group of family members and agreeable cronies makes the existence of a parliament wholly unnecessary.
An architecturally significant building can always house a real throne room; at least then the citizens and the rest of the world would know exactly what to expect from, and how to deal with, Bangladesh and its leaders. The argument for a change is not an argument in favour of the opposition’s present and past.
The entrenchment of a system that ridicules parliament means that a change in the captain will do nothing to change the course of the ship, since the overriding tendency is not only to staunchly oppose and refuse to work with others, but to wish the ten plagues on the other side.
Regardless of which party or which representative of any of the existing political parties holds the reins, there is no need for a parliament in Bangladesh. The chest-thumping, sycophantic speeches achieve nothing.
The Icelandic, Faroese, and Sicilian parliaments, all formed in 1097, are the oldest recognised parliaments in the world. However, the former two had no decision-making abilities, being only cosmetic bodies to help legitimise the respective sovereigns, making the Sicilian parliament the first true governmental body.
The Sicilian parliament had three chambers – the feudal chamber, the ecclesiastical chamber, and the state property chamber – that served as an advisory committee to help confirm the powers of the sovereign, especially on taxation. This formula was widely replicated across the planet at the inception of parliament as a system or tool of governance.
The first parliament to actually use the word in its name was the English parliament of 1236, during the reign of Henry III. Prior to this, parliaments had to be convened by the sovereign – a top-down system of advisory government.
Due to the weak position of Henry’s early reign, because of Magna Carta signed under his predecessor King John and his own young age, being a minor at the time of his coronation, he had to accept a regular convention of the nobility to guide him. Until 1263, parliament still had to be formally called by the monarch. In 1264, however, Henry’s increasingly volatile and authoritarian rule led to the first ever instance of parliament of nobility forming without the monarch’s consent.
Historically speaking, therefore, parliament started as a means for the privileged classes to pressurise the sovereigns in their respective countries. The notion of accountability to the masses, which is a hallmark of the debate for pro-liberal democratic values, was not a part of this system until much later. This means that contemporary frustrations with parliament, where people are becoming increasingly disillusioned with government and mainstream politics, are actually reflective of the historical roots of the institution.
Despite claims of accountability, there are no provisions anywhere in the world for the electorate to introduce a motion of no-confidence, for instance by means of a referendum. Although national sentiment can trigger such calls, it is still the prerogative of parliament to declare the actual motion.
A Curia Regis is conducive to the monopolisation of power, as well as the uniform code of domestic policy that is de rigueur in Bangladesh. Thus, a monarch’s council should suffice, and this view should be propagated widely across the globe to civilise the rest of the world. This, in turn, will negate the inherent fears in relation to foreign aid that unnecessarily propel autocracies of the developing world towards parliament.