[This was presented as keynote paper at a seminar organized by Leadership Studies Foundation on 21 March, and was printed in the New Nation in the name of ‘President speaks what he is authorized to’ on 23 March 2012, Dhaka, Bangladesh].
It’s an oft-quoted allegation from the oppositions in Parliament that the President’s address to Parliament at the commencement of the first session of each year is nothing but a blue print of the wishes and statements of the party/alliance in power without taking into note the real picture prevailing in the country They further sigh a sigh of relief with a contention that the President in doing so, usually, plays the role of a parrot instead of setting his role as a vigilant guide, friend and philosopher of the nation, which in their view is a shame and disappointment for them also. More noteworthy is the 113-munitue mostly-written speech by the Leader of the Opposition in the 9th Parliament Begum Khaleda Zia, which she, as if with a sort of unbearable stocks and loads of disappointments, made in Parliament on 20 March 2011, stating: ‘I cannot give thanks to the President for his address to Parliament at the commencement of this first session of the year since it merely amounted to and resulted in the highlights and exaggerations of the so-called successes of the party in power. President did not pay any due heed and attention to the sufferings and needs of the people which were created and pushed forward by the vested quarters and beneficiaries thereto under the direct patronization of the party in power. In fact, President’s address is a manifesto of the party in power and President by reading it out to Parliament eventually lowered down the image and neutrality of the highest office of the land’. Neither AL nor BNP while in the opposition does differ on this point as if there is a kind of consensus behind the curtain between them to take the President to task in such mode and manner and thus pave the way for giving birth to a stream of criticisms against the very neutrality and integrity of the President. Is it becoming at all in a parliamentary system of government reintroduced in 1991 by the Constitution (Twelve Amendment) Act, 1996?
Truly speaking, under a parliamentary system of government powers and functions of the Head of State in a constitutional monarchy like United Kingdom, motherland of parliamentary democracy, Japan, Canada, Australia or in a Republic such as India, Pakistan and Bangladesh remains either under the sword of conventional practices or under the sword of constitutional obligations.
In both cases, no Head of State should ever think of doing any act or function that may anyhow has a possibility to amount to going beyond the limits of conventional or constitutional obligations. One of such leading conventional or constitutional obligations of the Head of State is to address Parliament at the commencement of the first session after a general election of the members of Parliament and at the commencement of the first session of each year and these are done in accordance with the tradition of ‘speech from the Throne’, which grew and developed in UK. Then, in the wake of the development of parliamentary democracy depending on time, space and dimension with political parties in the core point and then leadership of the majority party in Parliament to run the government, it was finally settled in 1841 that the Head of State’s speech to Parliament should contain the statements wholly and solely made by the party in power. Thus it developed there as a convention and later it was taken either as a conventional practice or as a constitutional provision by the countries within the fold of PSG.
‘Speech from the throne’ which got transferred into ‘President’s address’ in a Republic of PSG is a constitutional provision in our perspective root of which lies in the Article 73 of the Constitution of Bangladesh and for its texts and contents it has further been subjected to the clause (3) of Article 48 that reads: ‘In the exercise of all his functions, save only that of appointing the prime minister pursuant to clause (3) of article 56 and the chief justice pursuant to clause (1) of articles 95, the President shall act in accordance with the advice of the prime minister’. It means Head of State called President in our context, except in appointing to the two august offices where his access to the exercise of discretion is also walled by the relevant clauses and articles of the Constitution, must act as per advice of the Prime Minister. This Article 48(3) is the basis of the constitutional obligations of President while discharging his functions. Therefore, President’s address or message to Parliament cannot but be made and set by the party/alliance in power and hence, he is not at all in a position to add or deduct or modify any word or sentence or paragraph in the address or message from his own without consultation with the Prime Minister. If he does so, he may be held liable for a violation of the Constitution under the clause (1) of Article 52. That’s why President’ address in the true sense of the term implies a speech/address of the party/alliance in power which is passed in the name of the President and from the very mouth of the President. From this point of view, it is better to be called ‘President’s reading out address’.
In a Republic with a parliamentary system of government President in the name of election to the office is also put under another kind of obligations, which may duly be named political obligations (not mentioned as such in the Constitution). This happened in Bangladesh with the insertion of Articles 48(1) and 50(2) and in India they are articles 52 and 54 (a) and (b). A president can hardly disown the party/alliance that has elected him to the office. Such political obligations also play a role to make him more obligated to the Prime Minister who at the same holds the chairs of the Leader of the House and the party. Thus, constitutional and political obligations together make necessary roads and in-roads to make and encourage a President like ours to be more loyal to and dependent on what the Prime Minister does say and pass to him from time to time.
This is also true that Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed during his presidency from 1996 to 2001 made attempts on a number of occasions to come out of these water-tight constitutional obligations, which were handled calmly and delicately by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. Relations between them even deteriorated at a later part of the administration since Shahabuddin did hardly care of the constitutional limitations while making speeches at different seminars and civic gatherings. In India’s context, Dr. Rajandra Prasad, first President of India after independence, fought a lot with the Premier J. Nehru on the point but succumbed to the reality in the end. Dr. B. Chowdhury, immediately after taking oath as the President of Bangladesh in 2001, expressed his determination to the media, print or electronic, that he would take initiatives to make a difference to the chair of the President, but had to quit the office silently within six months because of the generation of displeasure of Prime Minister Khaleda Zia.
It is further to be noted that political science and constitutional law also carry a record of testimonies that Queen Victoria in 1881 objected to a paragraph in the Queen’s Speech on the proposal of withdrawal of troops from Kandhar but she could not succeed in getting it done. Because Lord Spencer and Sir William, who were Ministers-in-Attendance, ‘impressed upon Sir H. Ponsonby that Speech from the Throne was in no sense an expression of Her Majesty’s individual sentiments but a declaration of policy made on the responsibility of her Ministers.’
Both AL and BNP are well aware of the real constitutional position of the President and both of them stick to such constitutional standing while in power. Then why do they play otherwise while in opposition? Answer is clean and clear. Yes, they do it from the seat of the opposition in Parliament with a view to effacing President’s minimum standing of neutrality and integrity at home and abroad indeed.
Therefore, let the ongoing approach of the members of Parliament belonging to the opposition, which is, to speak the truth, is unconstitutional by nature, be put on the right track so that the people at home and abroad fell free to understand the real standing of the President’s address to Parliament.
No comments:
Post a Comment