In Bangladesh crossing the floor in parliament is restricted by constitution

“In Bangladesh crossing the floor in parliament is restricted by constitution”

Introduction:

A constitution is a structure of a fundamental rules or principle or set of guides according to what a state or organization is administrated. Together all of these rules made up the constitution. When all of these rules or principles are written in a set of document, then it is consider as the written constitution. Constitution is the statement of fundamental principles of state’s policy, the executive, legislative and financial procedures etc .Constitution is the guidance for the legislative body of the county and they are bound to follow that.

Again, democracy and dictatorship are the two forms of governments. In democracy people have the equal right and freedom to speak against or for anything. On the other hand dictatorship is often known as “no democracy”. It is something where the people do not have power to raise their voice against the leader, and the power is centered among few people.

Now, the constitution of Bangladesh has some restriction (Article 70(1)) to the parliament member which obstructs them to raise their voice against their own party. Though it is a democratic government, but still practicing this kind of hinders to express their thoughts in parliament floor is a strong barrier for democracy and it appreciates dictatorship

Crossing the floor and Bangladesh:

Crossing the floor is, if the Member of Parliament gives vote against his party from which he got nomination to participate in election and elected. Changing party is also known as crossing the floor. By definition, it is, “ A condition where parliaments of a Government or Opposition member of parliament refuses to vote with his or her own party in a particular division and crosses the floor of the parliamentary chamber.”[1] It is something which does not allow the parliament member to raise their voice against their own party. Many countries are imposing this kind of rule in the constitution to maintain the chain of command in the party. This term is also known as “politic defection” or also known as “side swapping.” It is process by which the people of power are legally keeps them safe from all kind of criticism from their own party. Even this restriction rule of constitution restricted the parliament members to protest for anything from inside of party. Absolutely this law does not keep any scope for the people to raise their voice from inside. This rule is not stated in all countries but in most of places this works as shadow. This law mainly found in the country like Pakistan, Nepal, India, Malaysia, and Bangladesh. The main sprit of this law was to keep the rules and regulation free from any kind of problematic situation, but in reality more or less it has been used as a weapon to control the own party parliament members.

In Bangladesh, this crossing the floor is restricted by constitution. In article 70 (1) of Bangladesh constitution, it is clearly stated that if parliament member is present in parliament but absent from voting for his party then his seat will be vacate.

In Bangladesh, still now this crossing the floor happened once in its parliament history. It was in 2004; Mr. Abdul Mannan and Mr. Mahi B. Chowdhury’s seat was vacated for crossing the floor issue. Among them Mr. Mahi B. Chowdhury was re-elected as parliament member from a new born political party and Mr. Mannan failed to pass in election.

Demoralized to Vote against Party, Barrier of

Democracy:

In article 70(1), in Bangladesh constitution it creates a barrier to raise their voice of the parliament members against their own party. It clearly creates barrier on the path of democracy. Democracy is something where the power is not belongs to one and everyone has equal power to share their words. It founds the way by which it restricts the power of central head. Democracy is a representing system. It is a policy where people chose their representative by giving vote. Each representative elected from different areas. In this policy the duty of the parliament members or the representatives to let the government know about the problems, needs of that specific area. Now, as per the rule article of 70(1), it opposed the road of the parliament to speak for his area. It is clearly going against the main prospects of democracy. Democracy does not practice without having fields where the parliament members are restricted from speak based on any kind of issue.

Again in article 27 of Bangladesh constitution is also stated the people have to equal facility so if in the parliament, members are restricted it will be void the constitution rule also.

So, from all of this observation it is clear that creates barrier to floor crossing is like creating obstacle to cultivate democracy.

Create Barrier to Cultivate Democracy, Appreciating Dictatorship:

Democracy and dictatorship are the two opposite style of running government. Dictatorship is a process in which the power freezes within one person or a group of people. This is totally an opposite picture of democracy. Democracy is the root of a country. Now, if the barrier creates on the path of democracy then that turns towards the dictatorship. As we already know that democracy is something g which allows the people to talk independently. Now, if it obstructed then the power to speak goes to end, this directs the situation to the autocratic system. Like, as people are not allowed to speak what they like to say. In this condition as the powerful people are not obstructed or not been stopped from doing something so they are starting to push the people under them to follow them. It is the beginning of the autocratic government.

Observation on Article 70(1) and is it welcome or not:

Initially this 70 (1) has made of to keep the parliament out from mass. But as the time passes, it has experienced that, this law has restricted the normal activities of parliament. As the party’s high command does not have any challenge from the root levels of the country so the upper level or the head of the party start to take the decisions in favor of them instead of the party or the nation. Again, as it is legally prohibited so the parliament members of that party cannot speak out. As the process does not work, so it is ruining the democratic system in a continuous process. Of course this turning the country into a bad situation. So from my observation this no power to vote against the part rule is completely stopping the parliament members to cultivate the real democracy. Again this whole system is continuously pressing the governmental process into autocratic. In this process the head has the power to rule over the other members. Of, course this is not be any more welcome in any constitution.

Conclusion:

From, all of the upper discussion, the picture has been clear that the stopping the voting right against own party is clearly obstacle the road of practicing real democracy. This whole policy of being shutting door to raise voice against own part is breaking the main theme of democracy. As it does not allow the full democracy, it starts to move towards the autocratic government where the main power is centered among one person or few persons. This creates an autocratic environment t. This is treating situation for a nation. Again from the past experience it has found that this policy does not making any good for any nation, so this whole process has to stop to cultivate democracy in perfect way.

Reference:

“Aristotle, Politics.1317b (Book 6, Part II)”. Retrieved 2010-08-22

Perseus.tufts.edu.

B.miachel, B. Robert, (n.d.). Public opinion democracy and market reform in africa.

Pp329-333. Cambridge University press

Brown, Charles H., The Correspondents’ War. New York: Charles Scribners’

Sons, 1967

Hegemony Or Survival, Noam Chomsky Black Rose Books ISBN 0-8050-7400-7

Juan Linz, quoted in Natasha M. Ezrow, Erica Frantz (2011), Dictators and

Dictatorships: Understanding Authoritarian Regimes and Their Leaders,

Continuum International Publishing Group. p2

The New Oxford American Dictionary, Second Edn.,Erin Mckean(editor),2051pages,

May 2005, Oxford university Press, ISBN 0-19-517077-6

Keen, Benjamin, A History of Latin America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1980.

Kuykendall, Ralph, Hawaii: A History. New York: Prentice Hall, 1948

Mannan, Mahi quit BNP, Gen Nur Uddin AL. News From Bangladesh. Retrived on

(2004, March 4). From http://www.bangladesh-web.com/view.php?hidRecord=3186

Plinio Correa de Oliveira, Revolution and Counter-Revolution,(York, PA: The

American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property, 1993), pp.

20-23.

Research Note Australia, retrieved on 2005, October 10, p 1, ISSN 1449-8456, from: www.aph.gov.au/library

.

Sharp, G., (2002, May). Aiming at the dictator’s power. From dictatorship to democracy. p. 62. ISBN 1-880813-09-2

Taussig, Capt. J. K., “Experiences during the Boxer Rebellion,” in Quarterdeck and Fo’c’sle. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1963

[1] (2005, October 10). Research Note Australia, p 1,ISSN 1449-8456, derived from: www.aph.gov.au/library

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.