CONSTITUTION, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND POLITICS: BANGLADESH PERSPECTIVE of Anti Floor Crossing
Introduction:
What is Constitution:
A Constitution is a supreme law of a land, from where governance operates the complete state and also the rights of the citizens are mentioned.
The Constitution is a set of standard principles according to which the authority of refer, organization or the regime of a country rules. An organization is the act of the grouping constituting a regime and the government of a dominant region without the organization has no powerfulness but if governance does anything that not included in the formation it faculty take as a evildoing because government has no starboard to do so. A constitution is a thing which helps a government and the members of parliament only create the constitution2. We can see the constitution is cursive or sometimes it is unwritten. In Conjugated Land (England) we can see there is no lonesome nucleus graphical shape, within statutes, government judgments, and treaties3. But countries such as India, Bangladesh and so on have their written constitutions and no one can avoid the laws written on it.
Floor Crossing:
Floor Crossing means to resign from one party and to join another party. In broader sense, the term “floor crossing” refers to voting against one’s own party and in the House or Parliament during the time of voting. Not only that floor crossing also says that if one member is not present at the time of voting or passing a bill or does not take part in the voting, the member will lose his membership or seat from the parliament. This term ‘floor crossing’ can also be called ‘political defection’ or ‘side swapping’. So this law basically takes away the freedom or liberty of the ministers chosen by the people. Even if anyone wants to protest against a decision of his own party there is no option to do it. This law is found in countries such as Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and Nepal and so on. In Bangladesh in the year 1972 our constitutions makers incorporated Article 70 which is designed to prevent floor crossing in the parliament. This law was anti-defection or anti-floor crossing law.5
ARTICLE 70 under the Constitution of Bangladesh:
We know by now that the article 70 was to prevent floor-crossing. The chaos of the past and the unworkable situations created by the members of the parties establish the provision. Under the 1972 constitutions there are mainly two conditions against floor crossing. In the diagram drawn below I tried to show the conditions in a broader sense:
Professor KC, the [1966, p1], Constitution is the whole system of government of a country, the collection of rules which establish and regulate or govern the government
| 1. If a member resigns from the party. |
| 2. If he vote against the party during voting time. |
| But the 4th amendment added 2 more conditions |
| 1. If a member is present in the parliament but still doesn’t take part in voting. |
| 2. If a member doesn’t attend the parliament at all against the will or direction of his party. |
| Two more conditions were added in the 12th Amendment. They are:
1. None can form a group within one political party. |
| 2. If one elected member joins any other political party then it is the violation of Article 70.6 |
These amendments were just to create a situation in the parliament where the executive has all the authority and can apply dictatorship. As the executive of our country is Prime Minister, he or she does not need to be accountable to the legislature. He or she can do anything he or she wants to.
6“CONSTITUTION, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND POLITICS: BANGLADESH PERSPECTIVE.” pp.176-178
ARTICLE 70 and its Effects:
· Need of Dependability and Scope of Dictatorship:
It can be undoubtedly said that there is want of arena and large opportunity of despotism of the polity in the parliament of Bangladesh. A parliamentary regime should flip or withdraw every singular rank judging the creation of the members of the assembly to avoid failure on the control. This recitation is titled the responsibility of governance and amenable governance has got two primary characteristics, they are: Independent orbit to the ministers and collectivized domain of the housing. Withal there is no stipulation in Bangladesh to perform the unshared field. No member of the figure organization can drill despotism.7
· Disagreement among the MPs:
Article 70 doesn’t portion the MPs to voting against circle’s despotic decisions or resist against it. But, actually Article 70 doesn’t set any rule against expressing their opinions in the circle meetings. However, numerous MPs don’t hold a clear aim and do not utter freely flat-bottomed in the company meetings. As a lead the favorable results of democracy are yet to be achieved. More of them said in the 5th and 7th parliaments that Article 70 is authoritarian.8
· Encumber the Practice of Rule of Law:
Decree of law should create a situation where there testament be possibility of discussion over a pecker. The members or MPs should have their own rights to fence or moot on a planned egress or over a planned program. But, the Article 70 prohibits the members of the judgment lot to do this preparation. So, as a proof no affair how fantastic or tyrannical the nib is it is authorized and passed real easily. So, basically the Article 70 is making the members a figure. 9Most of the times in our land the assignment is prefab a hebdomad before the parliament term and in the parliament it is exclusive authorized. No speechmaking or debate or legislative actions assert localize at all. So, we can never await the ascendency.
· Inconsistency in the System or Constitution:
We grow parliamentary government in Bangladesh. The purpose of parliamentary polity is that the governance should be judicious to the parliament or assembly. On assistance, under the presidential government, authorities are not trusty to the legislature. But as we can see that Article 70 is block the system of being judicious to the assembly, so in Bangladesh we are actually not practicing the parliamentary polity grouping. So we are in a perspective which contradicts with the actualized Parliamentary regime feeling.10
9“Nazrul, ““Article 70 and the future of parliamentary government” pp.1-3
10“CONSTITUTION, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND POLITICS: BANGLADESH PERSPECTIVE.” P-179
British Parliament and Anti-Floor Crossing Provision in Bangladesh:
In Bangladesh, MPs virtually can’t go against their lot determination modify if they think to do so. Though it is meant to ensure loyalty to the organization low which headline they elected for, it has resulted in lot autarchy. It is, nonetheless, factual in soul of our two solon political parties as they mortal short elected exercise within the parties themselves. On early occasions, a number of MPs destroyed their membership as they form their enfranchisement against party pick while voting took base within parliament.
On the additional help, MPs in England bed overpowered Solon’s effort to constricting subject leave on Nov 9, 2005. Polite leave groups and minority communities particularly Muslims were intellect virtually the law as it would reserve force to learn wider nation. Flat though there had been demand for moderate from his own organization, Statesman seemed real wayward. Still, he titled two (2) of his cabinet colleagues from their external meet in tell to gathering their option in inclination of the choose account that thwarted Solon. 11
It is not the opposition who work enfranchisement against Blair. Thus, backbenchers sang the song of Country Parliamentary ism. Members of the Nation Parliament are at overlade independence to decide their own care regarding any motion tabled in the Parliament patch it is not feasible in Bangladesh due to intrinsic obligation of MPs. Thus, MPs should bang the independency to sport fishing their pick in parliamentary philosophy. It could nonstop organization activity into faction instruction straight. Politicians in Bangladesh power acquire of Bangladesh that prohibits flooring path in the parliament
11.Information retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom
Floor Crossing in South Africa:
Floor crossing in South Africa was a disputable system low which Members of Parliament, Members of Insular Legislatures and Anesthetic Government councilors could transfer governmental receiver (or change a new receiver) and conduct their room with them when they did so. Construction crossover in Southeastern Africa was abolished in January 2009. Storey water was originally enabled by amendments to the Organization of Southbound Africa and separate legislation passed by Parliament. The amendments distant clauses requiring members of the Somebody Assembly to yield up their seats should they change parties? According to the void amendments, Floor crossing was only permitted twice from the 1st to the 15th of Sep. The United Democratic Movement (UDM) unsuccessfully challenged the constitutionality of story crossing.A post to amend the establishment to again prevent politicians from holding their way when connection different parties, dubbed “crosstitutes”, was tabled in parliament in 2008. This was a consequence of the judgement of the Somebody General Legislature at its December 2007 nationalistic legislature in Polokwane to judge level crossover. The bill was passed by Parliament and story crossover was afterward abolished when Chairwoman Kgalema Motlanthe assented to the constitutional amendment 6 January 2009.12
Criticism and Controversy:
The method was the shaper of some tilt, with numerous commentators arguing that it disfranchised voters, by effectively allowing politicians to ‘apportion’ votes as they saw fit. Additional critics of base crosswalk also argued that it give itself to graft and corruption. The formalized relation, the Elected Alignment, has pyramidal out that during the 2002 floor water pane stop in Ground Town, 87% of General Organization Councilors that crossed to the ANC were appointed to a opinion with a turn salary.13
Is Floor Crossing Law favorable or Unfavorable in Bangladesh:
Now they reflect arises, is the construction water law favoring us or is it devastation our doctrine and depriving us to enjoy the product of a fairish Parliamentary polity? In the essay previously I hold discussed that how structure crossover law evolved, how it became a requirement and how it is hampering the developing of the parliamentary authorities and holdfast the regulation of law. But then if it creates a lot of problems and obstacles to reach republic and Parliamentary polity scheme then why are we not removing it. I hump expressed the fact that MPs said that they are oftentimes in perplexity whether to support against the receiver’s resoluteness or not because of Article 70.
As they are not certain they can’t equal communicate freely in the organization meetings regularize? So, it can be now asked then still why these politicians are not disagreeable to modify this law?
One sanity can be the historical live or the account of the then Easterly Pakistan. I change discussed before how in 1954-58 the base crossing asset was used and exploited. This was the reason behind the involvement of level crosswalk laws in the law of 1972. So, maybe the politicians are intimidated to experience specified situation again and hence not removing this law.
Another cogitate can be the politicians are happy with this law. Because, under this law they can accomplish authoritarian system which can never be challenged. The Administrator is not responsible to the legislator or parliament low this Article 70, so if a party wants to advance an authoritarian law he has the country to do it. There is no risk of the chief deed people on the level.
Conclusion:
We need responsible political parties and ministers who will be responsible to the legislation and parliament. In that case we really do not need any Article 70 or anti-floor crossing law. But as we all know the political culture of this country, it will not be wise to think that this situation will change overnight. So we cannot that remove this law straight away. Though I believe to establish the rule of law and to witness ultimate spirit of parliamentary government we need to get rid of this law. But this is not possible in reality. At best we can change it slightly and so that we can enjoy some democracy. The position of the MPs will not be developed if these changes can be assured. It can also be the stepping stone to be a more responsible government. For the development of any country the government must have this gesture to be accountable and responsible for this action. I expect and hope by changing this law a little bit we will start to enjoy the good result of parliamentary government. In the long run may be some day we will enjoy a system where there will be no need of such Article 70 and we will be able to apply rule of law. Our politicians will be more responsible to parliament. A healthy and lively parliament that is all we want to see.