A rare outbreak of consensus has broken out in the Jatiya Sangsad this month, with lawmakers and commentators across the political divide expressing concerns about the use of “unparliamentary language” in the National Assembly.
Following interventions by the Speaker, much reference is being made to Rule 270 of the Rules of Procedure which states that parliamentarians “shall not use any offensive, abusive, vulgar expressions.” It is only right of course that procedural rules should be upheld and it is refreshing to note that some lawmakers said they have felt “embarrassed” about recent media coverage and now say they ”wish to stop using bad language in parliament to uphold the dignity of the House.”
One advantage of such rules is that they encourage creativity in democratic debate. Hence the website of the often rowdy Westminster Parliament proudly notes that “Winston Churchill famously used the phrase “terminological inexactitude” to mean “lie.”
Bangladesh’s citizens however would be better served if more MPs felt embarrassment about other aspects of its prevailing political culture. To take just one example, the right to call politically inspired strikes, which is zealously defended by both political alliances, is tainted by an atmosphere of implied threats that goes with calls to “observe” hartals.
Children in playground fights are taught by adults that “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”
Given a choice between preventing the feelings of honourable members being hurt by words and ordinary people being physically injured in violent demonstrations, which would most people prefer?
