Conceptual understanding of Opposition in Parliament

(This was published in the Financial Express under the caption ‘Making Parliament effectively functional’ on 20 April  and in Dhaka Courier 06 May  2012 in the name of ‘Better call it Minority in Parliament’, Dhaka, Bangladesh)

A state can never be without a government since government is one of the four essential components of a state and then a government cannot be without a leadership whether political or non-political and elected or non-elected. In a multi-party parliamentary system of government (mostly after the Westminster model), under all the circumstances, it is either a political convention or a constitutional provision that the electorate by way of casting their votes in a general election to Parliament decide which party/alliance shall get majority seats in parliament and sit to the right of the Speaker and, thus, go to power by forming  a cabinet/council of ministers  and which party/alliance shall be second, third etc in strength in Parliament and sit to the left of the Speaker

The party/alliance which forms the ministry to lead the government for a constitutionally stipulated period of time say, five years in the context of UK, Canada, Australia, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and so on is called party-in-power or ruling party, widely goes by the name ‘government’ in the common parlance, use and sense and the party or parties that remains or remain out of power in the sense of not leading and running the government is recognized as ‘opposition in parliament’. In line with this theme and spirit, constitutional conventions or provisions fix and determine officially that the second largest party will be recognized as the major Opposition in Parliament and, thus, plays its due role. If it is ever found that that the difference of numerical strength between the second and the third largest parties is marginal, even then the ‘Hobson’s choice is that the second largest party shall be qualified for becoming the leader of all the MPs sitting to the left of the Speaker. This major Opposition may also go further to constitute a shadow cabinet/council of ministers, if it thinks so under any compelling situation.

Such major Opposition requires a minimum number of seats in Parliament in pursuant to the established conventions or rules of the concerned parliament and this can be available in two ways. It can be possible because of the availability of the required number of seats by the second largest party alone in Parliament or in the failure of getting the required number of seats in parliament by any single political party, then two or more Opposition political parties in Parliament may attain the target by forming an alliance. If this is not possible at all for the reasons known or unknown then a crisis in this regard is unavoidable, which should be settled realistically and judiciously by the Speaker in consultation with the leader of the House (leader of the majority party in Parliament). The leader of this major opposition is called ‘Leader of the Opposition in Parliament’ who is officially entitled to enjoy the status, privileges and remunerations equivalent to a Cabinet Minister. In the American context of Presidential form of Government, leader of the majority party in Congress is called ‘leader of the majority party’ whereas the ‘leader of the opposition’ i.e. the second largest party in Congress is marked as ‘leader of the minority’.

People are accustomed to sense and think that Opposition in Parliament means to oppose the party-in power inside and outside the Parliament. This is indeed one half of the truth of the roles of the Opposition in Parliament. Then the questions crop up, what is the other half? Why are the people impregnated and intoxicated with such half truth? Answer is straight and clear that the notion of such half truth arises from firstly, the use of very taxonomy ‘Opposition’ and secondly, the role of the MPs sitting to the left of the Speaker in Parliament and thirdly, the political parties, leaders and, to some extent, media both print and electronic and think-tanks in particular who are fond of talking about politics and political parties. Likewise, political scientists of the day should also be held responsible for not applying their merits rightly to devise a befitting nomenclature to substitute the words ‘Opposition in Parliament’ so that the full truth reaches the people duly and perfectly on time.

Organically, the phrase His Majesty's Opposition was coined in 1826, before the advent of the modern two-party system when Parliament consisted more of interests, relationships and factions rather than the highly coherent political parties of today (although the Whigs and Tories were the two main parties). Attacking the foreign Secretary, George Canning in the House of Commons, John Hobhouse said, "It is said to be hard on His Majesty's Ministers to raise objections of this character but it is harder on His Majesty's Opposition to compel them to take this course." The phrase was widely welcomed and has been in use ever since.

Opposition as a viable weight and consideration came to light more conspicuously when its Leader got recognition firstly from the Speaker and the ruling party and secondly through legislation in UK. George Ponsonby, in the true sense of the term ‘Leader of the Opposition having  homogeneity of the majority MPs from the second largest party in Parliament , is  rightly treated as  the first Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons in UK and he remained in office until he died in 1871. Leaders of the Opposition, in the two Houses of Parliament, had been generally recognized and given a special status in Parliament for more than a century before they were mentioned in legislation. It is understood from ‘Ersking May: Parliamentary Practice’ that the office of Leader of the Opposition was first given statutory recognition in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1937. Section 5 states that "There shall be paid to the Leader of the Opposition an annual salary of two thousand pounds".

Section 10(1) includes a definition (which codifies the usual situation under the previous custom), "Leader of the Opposition" means that member of the House of Commons who is for the time being the leader in that House of the party in opposition to His Majesty's Government having the greatest numerical strength in that House".

The 1937 Act also contains an important provision to decide who is to be the Leader of the Opposition, if this is in doubt. Under section 10(3) "If any doubt arises as to which is or was at any material time the party in opposition to His Majesty's Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons, or as to who is or was at any material time the leader in that House of such a party the question shall be decided for the purposes of this Act by the Speaker of the House of Commons, and his decision, certified in writing under his hand, shall be final and conclusive".

Subsequent legislation also gave statutory recognition to the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords.

Section 2(1) of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, provides that "In this Act "Leader of the Opposition" means, in relation to either House of Parliament, that member of that House who is for the time being the Leader in that House of the party in opposition to Her Majesty's Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons". The legislative provisions confirm that Leader of the Opposition is, strictly, a Parliamentary office; so that to be Leader a person must be a member of the House in which he or she leads.

Since 1915, the Leader of the Opposition has, like the Prime Minister, always been a member of the House of Commons. Before that a member of the House of Lords sometimes took on the role, although often there was no overall Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has since 1937 received a state salary in addition to their salary as a Member of Parliament, now equivalent to a Cabinet Minister. The holder also receives a chauffeur-driven car for official business of equivalent cost and specification to the vehicles used by most cabinet ministers.  Although there has never been a dispute as to who holds the position, under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, the Speaker’s decision on the identity of the Leader of the Opposition is final.

Truly speaking, Opposition(s) usually plays its role in the mode and manner of scrutiny, criticism, debates and alternate proposals of the initiatives, policies, proposal and programs of the party-in-power. Sometimes it also dares initiate proposal on a particular issue or policy of national importance, which may as well be affirmed and accepted by the majority party in Parliament. It is on record that its roles in the standing committees on the different ministries of the government and in the standing committees other than on the ministries are regarded as valuable contributions to the positive functioning of the government. It is found that chairmanship of one or more than one of such standing committee/select committee are held by the senior MPs from the Opposition because of the allocation of quota on the basis of the total number or strength of seats in parliament. In such cases and situations, they do not merely remain Opposition rather become active parts of government. Therefore, Opposition does not mean and convey the sense of being wholly opposed to the policies, programs and initiatives of the government. To a certain extent it passes a message that a MP even in spite of his belonging to the fold of Opposition can evaluate, appreciate and support the positive and welfare-oriented development programs and policies of the government. In case of foreign policy and foreign relations both the ruling and the opposition are mostly of the same minds in nearly all the areas and issues. Further reality is that the very concept of bi-partisanship bears a testimony that both the ruling and the opposition share uniquely the matter of national interests and issues, if such a circumstance crops up ever. More interesting to note is that in a developed form of parliamentary democracy, as found in UK, Australia and Canada, the members of Parliament from both the ruling party and the opposition are in a comfortable position to initiate any proposal jointly, which sets an example glaringly to the effect that agreement, not opposition is also a carnal point of a PSG.

It is to be noted that whilst most days in the House of Commons in UK are set aside for government business, twenty days in each session called ‘Opposition days’ are set aside for opposition debates. Of these days, seventeen are at the disposal of the Leader of the Opposition and three can be used by the leader of the smaller, or Tertiary, opposition party (for most recent history this has been Liberal Democrats. Although the Opposition has no more formal powers in setting the Parliamentary agenda, in reality they have a certain influence through a process known as the usual channels.

In fact, Electorate do not make any strict line of ‘yes or ‘no’ after the model and concept of position and opposition rather they ensure a kind of accommodation full of rhythms and intonations so that when one party/alliance is voted to power and the others/alliance remaining out of  power as such should also contribute firstly, by way of criticizing, scrutinizing, debating the initiatives, policies and programs of the party-in-power and secondly, by placing alternate or fresh proposals and, thus, create a check and balance as a democratic and constitutional watchdog. But, under all the circumstances, the Opposition in Parliament must be fair, just and respectful to the due implementation of the electoral pledges of the party-in-power, and, accordingly, shall not create illogical and unnecessary hindrance or blockade by misusing the processes and procedures therein. Neither a ruling party nor an opposition should style itself as the sole holder and bearer of patriotism. Fairly, there is no denying the fact that the sense of patriotism is certainly infused and activated in both the position and opposition. No scale or weight should be allowed to measure this very foundation of patriotism because such attempts shall only result in the waste of time, energy and money paying no dividends to the country and the people in the end.

Therefore, it is crystal clear from the real working and functioning of the second largest party/alliance in Parliament that use of the words  ‘Opposition in Parliament’ conveys one half of the truth and conceals the other half at the same time. It’s a decided actuality in logic and science that half cannot be treated as full and even if such attempts are made and applied to that would definitely be a misnomer. From this very standpoint, the widely prevalent taxonomy ‘Opposition in Parliament ‘does not connote and convey the full truth of the role of the second largest party/alliance in Parliament. Unfortunately, this half truth has become full truth because of the use of the words ‘Opposition in Parliament’. This has emerged as a curse in the fledgling parliamentary democracies in the developing and under-developed countries. Here Opposition means to stand against the government in almost all respects. Ruling party/alliance also never lags behind in viewing and treating the Opposition party/alliance as mere critics and obstructionists. Another painstaking addition is the notion of the Administration, especially the law-enforcing agencies and the defense forces who hardly fell comfort to comply with any request of a MP belonging to the opposition fold, even if such request deserves to be treated genuinely and urgently. As a result, public gets a message in the similar vein that Opposition implies opposing the government anyhow.

The matter is more serious in Bangladesh perspective when it is found here that the defeated party/alliance in a general election to Parliament outright rejects the results terming the same as farce and conspiracy. All the five results of the past general elections to Parliament, starting from 1991 to 2008, under the then non-party, neutral care-taker governments met with the same fate because of the allegations by the opposition. So, opposition here is born with a perception that it has been made opposition not by the Electorate, but by conspiracy and rigging of votes and the party-in power is the factual opposition. It also sticks to the belief the voice of electorate essentially went in favor of it but the party-in-power has taken the leadership of the government by suppressing and depriving the bona fide one, and has compelled it to sit to the left of the Speaker in Parliament and, eventually, the party-in-power is dubbed as ‘so-called ruling party’. Thus develops a sense of antagonism and apathy in the mind of opposition irrespective of ranks and files that leads the opposition to stand on a firm footing of ‘Yes or No’, suggesting if the party-in-power says ‘yes’ Opposition then without a pause sounds ‘no’ and vice versa, and this is, of course, a half truth of the role of Opposition in Parliament. This half truth is now the full truth in our context, which has been sharpened and boiled by our petticoat parties Awami Leauge(AL) and Bangladesh Nationalist Party(BNP).

Necessity of immediate formation of a Shadow Government under the bold leadership of the leader of the Opposition is a call of the time but no Governments, starting from the reintroduction of Parliamentary democracy in 1991 to the ongoing 9^th Parliament, gave thought to it at all. There are a plenty of reasons to believe that if it is floated duly without a delay it will help, inter alia, to foster a sense of competition among the rising leaders and the nation shall be in a better position to find more and more statesmen who will really be unique in the art of statecrafts for which Bangladesh is suffering and which the nation has been longing for. It will uphold the real honor, dignity and flavor of the second party/alliance in Parliament. Above all, the prevailing undesirable notion of the Administration including the officials and diplomats in the foreign ministry, law-enforcing agencies and the armed forces in particular shall be transformed into a positive perception consequently and when the task of the formation of Shadow Cabinet is well done and well set then the positive role of the Opposition is also vibrated and stimulated in a mode of cumulative frequencies.

One of the most-oft-quoted saying from Shakespeare is ‘what is in name if a rose does not smell?’ Same is also true and equally applicable to the use of the words ‘Opposition in Parliament’ and it is what is in name if the taxonomy ‘Opposition in Parliament’ conveys one half of it and conceals the other half. This taxonomy is also negative in sense, nature and dimension This negative use of the taxonomy needs to be arrested and stopped with immediate effect and this can better be done mainly by the political parties in the Opposition fold and camp through their sincere, fair and committed drives by playing the other half accordingly and, thus, let them tell the people what the term ‘Opposition’ denotes organically and operationally. If such approach is not liked by them on sheer political grounds in that case it is better to call it ‘Minority in Parliament’ in place of ‘Opposition in Parliament’ because----------

·         This one conveys the full truth of the role of the Opposition, pointedly, the second largest party/alliance in Parliament in a very positive mode, manner and sense and, thus, paves the way more consistently and necessarily including taking initiatives to the formation of Shadow Cabinet/Council of Ministers to show and set its excellence accordingly; and

·         People shall be in a position to understand the exact standing of it since Parliament stands on the three pillars taking the Majority party, the Minority party and the President into a single whole and entity.

To make everything perfectly viable and fairer, an initiative may also be taken to the effect that the majority in Parliament shall sit to the left of the Speaker and the minority in Parliament shall sit to the right of the Speaker at least fifteen days a year. Such inter-change of the positions of sitting of the Majority and the Minority may also leave behind an impression about standing of the members of Parliament belonging to the Minority in Parliament.

May Allah bless us, bless Bangladesh, bless our fledgling multi-party parliamentary democracy and bless, bless our two petticoat political parties and their leaders so that all of us concertedly may be in a position to put Bangladesh on a firm standing at home and abroad.