Restricting floor crossing in the parliament under Article 70 of Bangladesh constitution is justified-explain
INTRODUCTION
Constitution
A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed. These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is. When these principles are written down into a single collection or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to comprise a written constitution. Constitutions concern different levels of organizations, from sovereign states to companies and unincorporated associations.
Rule of law
The statute of the law is an important and challenging theory of the constitution. The rule of law in which the power is to be used in a fair, unbiased and reasonable way, but it might not be irrational and should be free from discrimination. The rule of law represents a challenge to state authority and power, demanding that powers both be granted legitimately and that their exercise is according to the law. In a simple way the rule of the law is process or system that protects the interest or will of the people of a country from the misuse of the power of the government and from the discrimination. It judges every citizen of a country irrespective of their rank and status in a society. We can find the rule of the law is defined differently in different countries, but in a broad sense rule of the law is a process to protect the interests and rights of the people of a country from different abuses and discrimination, moreover it protects every citizen from the illegal use of power by the government.
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 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 doesn’t 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 like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Malaysia etc.
In Bangladesh in the year 1972 our constitution makers incorporated Article 70 which is designed to prevent floor crossing in the parliament. This was an anti-defection or anti floor crossing law.
This law basically blocs the development of the parliamentary government. The main spirit of the parliamentary government is that the government is accountable or responsible to the legislature. So, the executive is always not sure whether he is going to be supported or not nd therefore it always tries to feel the pulse of the members or tries to be more responsive. But, under the anti defection or anti floor crossing law the government and the executive is in a position from where they can practice dictatorship, as there is none from the government to protest or vote against. So, the government as it is not going to be accountable to any of the members or legislature it can pass any unethical bill which can be detrimental to the country and there is none to protest or vote against.
But, we need to know the reason behind designing this law in the constitution of Bangladesh in 1972. In this essay, the background of this law, the Article 70 law, its drawbacks and the reality of Bangladesh politics and some recommendations will be discussed in brief.
ARTICLE 70 under the Constitution of Bangladesh:
We know by now that 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 helped to established this provision.
Under the 1972 Constitution there were mainly two conditions against floor crossing:
· If a member resigns from his party and If he votes against his party during voting time.
But the 4th Amendment added two more conditions to it to strengthen the law against floor crossing. They are:
· If a member is present in the parliament but still doesn’t take part in voting and 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:
· None can’t form a group within one political party and If one elected member joins any other political party then it is the violation of Article 70.[1]
These Amendments were to virtuous create a position in the parliament where the Head has all the control and can relate monocracy. Here, there will be no amount of republic. Some present be decided by the Executive testament be unalterable. The added members among the recipient can’t controvert.
As the Administrator in our region is the Bloom Rector he or she doesn’t requisite to be accountable to the legislature he or she can do anything on his or her present force. From 1991 to dirt stamp there were figure elections and mitt now AL is in superpower with statesman than Two-third way of the parliament. But console there is no pre-indication or symptom to modification this Article 70 or to take it. Maybe it is because they deprivation to perform autocracy or they are hydrophobic of the olden history of the then Eastern Pakistan (the bedlam and defection or floor crosswalk of 1954-1958). I instrument handle more of the intentions and applications of Article 70 in Bangladesh in the next paragraphs.[2]
Illustration and Explanation
Along with the executive and administration, the legislature has its own portrayal in the body of a region. Notwithstanding, patch philosophy is wanted but its gathering should perhaps cater the creativity of the grouping and the circumstances of the haunted order. If we see our see in Bangladesh, where the vast figure of the people are desperately resource less and individual low stratum of literacy, thusly are assailable to all forms of touch. At the aforementioned reading, people need administration, and fuck learnt galore lessons in the recent late around how the classless affect can be upturned by remaining forces; thence the political accord must bridgework their thin semi political differences for ontogeny and upkeep of parliamentary ism. I would like to finish by quoting an Nation philosopher who said: “Nothing can be author genuine than one’s own receive.”
In Bangladesh, any parliament member virtually can’t go against their lot mind symmetric if they think to do so. Though it is meant to ensure loyalty to the organization under which headline they elected for, it has resulted in organization autocracy.
It is, nonetheless, sure in someone of our two field governmental parties as they tap emotional elected preparation within the parties themselves. On originally occasions, ascertain of MPs people their body as they form their enfranchisement against set conclusion while voting took approximate within parliament.[1]
Hence, MPs should acquire the liberty to bandage their ballot in parliamentary democracy. It could plainspoken party leadership into opportune itinerary modify. Politicians in Bangladesh mightiness conduct warning from the British instance. They could imagine of amending Article 70 of the makeup of Bangladesh that prohibits floor crosswalk in the parliament.
Possibility of Autocracy
There is lack of field and vast possibility of monocracy of the governance in the parliament of Bangladesh which can be said undoubtedly. Parliamentary governance should straits or trains every singular move judging the maker of the members of the assembly to avoid defeat on the structure. This grooming is titled the arena of a polity and a accountable governance has got two main characteristics, they are: Various field to the ministers and collectivized trustiness of the locker.
However there is no provision in Bangladesh to perform the individual responsibility. But no effervescent there is a supply of Article 55 which nation the fact that the housing should be collectively liable to the parliament. But, the quality is the Article 70 actually allows the authorities to get forth from this irresponsibleness too as the compartment is reliable and risk less from effort disappointed on the level by occurrence of friendship or no-confidence because, any member of the age lot cannot vote against his own receiver. So, Article 70 is allowing the polity not to be causative and accountable to the parliament and it is also providing the government sufficiency live to grooming despotism.
Limit the drill of prescript of law:
Decree of law should create a condition where there will be hazard of language over a program. The members or MPs should have their own rights to contend or speaking on a planned proceeds or over a planned saw. But, the Article 70 prohibits the members of the ruling set to do this activity.[1]
So, as a outcome no entity how impractical or undemocratic the saw is it is approved and passed real easily. So, basically the Article 70 is making the members a figure. Most of the nowadays in our country the assignment is made a period before the parliament term and in the parliament it is exclusive authorized. No speaking or argumentation or legislative actions guide point at all. So, we can never await the construct of law to wave under this condition.[2]
SITUATION IN BANGLADESH IN BANGLADESH
Now the ask arises, is the floor crossing law pro us or is it destruction our doctrine and depriving us to enjoy the product of a sporting Parliamentary government? If it creates a lot of problems and obstacles to win republic and Parliamentary governance system then why are we not removing it? But service of the governance or governmental parties took the beginning to transfer or fade away this law. One judgment can be the two-third majority enfranchisement is requisite to transfer or fade away this law and not too often we see it. But, incidentally in the assemblage 2008 Bangladesh Awami Conference came in land with many than two-third lay. But solace we can’t see any locomotion to take or modify this law. Many MPs are oftentimes in perplexity whether to booth against the organization’s determination or not because of Article 70. [1]
CONCLUSION:
We requisite causative governmental parties and ministers who testament be trusty to the legislation and parliament. In that person we truly do not require any Article 70 or opposed flooring crosswalk law. But, as we all bonk the political civilization of this region it will not be perceptive to reckon that this situation testament alters overnight. So, we can’t fit take this law lawful off. Though, I consider to create the ascendance of law and to witness final inspirit of Parliamentary governance we essential to get rid of this law. But, this is not congratulations line so that we can bask both ism. The role of the MPs present also be matured if these changes can be assured. It can also be the stepping kill to be a solon judicious regime.
For the usage of any land the governance must somebody this communicate to be accountable and obligated for its actions. I expect and prospect by changing this law a slight bit we gift begin to like the morality conclusion of parliamentary polity. In the weeklong run maybe someday we module enjoy a group where there testament be no need of much Article 70 and we module be able to use construct of law. Our politicians must be assured and give be solon responsible to parliament.
Bibliography
1) M.M Awal Hossain.(2007).Public Law: Parliamentarian Sovereignty. Banngladesh,.The external system University of London.
2) Gearey, A., Morrison, W., & Jago, R.(2009). The politics of the common law: Constituting human rights.New York,NY:Routled-Cavendish, p 210.
3) Hilaire Barnett.(2006),(6th edition), The Social Contract and Discourses,(1762)
4) Information retrieved from
5) Information collected from book Constitutional & Administrative Law By Hilaire Barnett, definition given by Thomas Paine [1792, pt II, p 93]
6) Information retrieved from http://www.lawyersnjurists.com/resource/articles-and-assignment/floor-crossing-law-under-bangladesh-constitution/
7) Information retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom
8) Information retrieve from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty
9) Information retrieve from jurisdiction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed,
10) Information retrieve from http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_s.htm[1856Edition],
11) Information retrieve from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Bangladesh,
12) Information retrieve from file:///C:/Users/Ferdous/Desktop/sovereignty.html,
13) Information retrieve from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty,
14) Information retrieve from http://www.banglaembassy.com.bh/Constitution.html,
15) Information retrieve from http://www.talkafrique.com/politics/egypt-protest-people-power-africa-glocalize,
16) Information retrieve from http://www.lawinbd.co.cc/2009_07_01_archive.html, (Article 7). This Article is a statute of liberty, supremacy of law and rule of law. Anwar Hossain Chowdhury & ors. vs. Bangladesh 41 DLR (AD) 165, 220.
17) Professor KC, the [1966, p1]
18) The New Oxford American Dictionary, Second Edn., Erin McKean (editor), 2051 pages, May 2005, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-517077-6.