[This was
published in Dhaka Courier on 09 June 2012, in the New Nation on 23 May 2012
and the Financial Express published it under the title ‘Looking for a proper
role of Prime Minister in a Parliamentary democracy’ on 05 May 2012, Dhaka,
Bangladesh]
Practically speaking, predominance of the office of Prime Minister, at
the negation of the very spirit of Parliamentary system of government, widely
called Westminster model, was neither static in the past, nor does it remain so
today. And this may, historically, be viewed in three perspectives namely-- (a)
she or he is the ‘Primus inter pares’ meaning she or he is first, among equals’
(Lord Morley and his view has also been echoed by Morrison. H. in Go
Parliamentary System of Government vernment and Parliament, p.97) (b) she or he
is an ‘Inter stallas luna minores’ denoting that she or he is a moon among
lesser stars (Orgg and Zink, Modern Foreign Governments, p.90) and(c) she or he
is the ‘Sun’ around which planets revolve implying that the Cabinet/Council of
Ministers revolve around him both singly and collectively (Churchill, W.I. Their
Finest Hour, p.15).
The first one made its appearance at the initial phase of Parliamentary
democracy and continued up to the point of jumping to the take-off phase;
second one prevailed during the take-off period, and it still prevails where
the take-off period is yet to be accomplished and concluded; and third one
began to swell at the commencement of the matured phase and it is still on in
different forms and dimensions mostly in the western industrialized states.
All these three focuses are tied to a single whole since the concept of
Prime Minister is innately tagged to the growth and development of
Parliamentary democracy that moved onward, and is still moving onward, initiating
gradual but uneven and labyrinth transfer of power from the King/Queen to
Parliament to Cabinet to the Prime Minister depending on time, space and
dimension.
Amazingly enough, the system of Cabinet Government grew and developed
first but the designation ‘Prime Minister ‘came after a long space of time.
Initially, the First Lord of His Majesty’s Treasury was looked upon as the
‘First, among equals’ without further being referred to any specific
designation. Speaking historically, system of Cabinet Government can be said to
have really emerged when the King was finally excluded from the meetings of the
Cabinet. This occurred in by chance in 1714 when George 1 chose the policy of
abstention from attending the meetings
of the Council because of his not understanding English and designated Sir
Robert Walpole, who continued for about twenty years onward, to preside in his
place. The Cabinet thereupon ceased to meet at the palace with the King
presiding, and met as an alternative at the First Lord of the Treasury’s house
No. 10 Downing Street, which subsequently became the official residence of the
Prime Minister. Walpole
became a kind of Chairman to the Cabinet and he himself furnished the required
leadership in absence of the King and the colleagues looked to him for
directions. Moreover, as a Member of Parliament he served as a link between the
Cabinet and Parliament. This new position and duties of Walpole in effect involved the origin of the
office of the Prime Minister. Necessity and inevitability, thus, grafted the
Premiership as well the Cabinet constitution.
One more consequence of the absence of the King from meetings of the
Cabinet was that Ministers, instead of tendering individual advice, began
seeking for unanimity. Walpole
also became a link between the King and Cabinet. When distinct political
parties began to emerge, it became convenient to draw all the Cabinet Ministers
from a single majority party to be sure of the Parliamentary approval.
No statute settled the status of the Prime Minister and his salary was
drawn in part as First Lord of the Treasury, an office bound up with
Premiership since 1721.
By 1832 the position of the Prime Minister (the title then was not
recognized officially) as the leader of the predominant party in the House of
Commons had become recognized. No Peer had been made Prime Minister since the
resignation of Lord Salisbury in 1912.
The designation ‘Prime Minister’ was first coined in 1878 to give
importance and pre-eminence to the office of the ‘First Lord of the Treasury’
in England
when Lord Beaconsfield who signed the Treaty of Berlin was referred to in the
opening clause as ‘First Lord of His Majesty’s Treasury, Prime Minister of
England’. In 1906, the formal position in the order of precedence in State
ceremonials was accorded to the office whereby the Prime Minister was made the
fourth subject of the Kingdom, just after the Archbishop of York. The Chequers
Estate Act of 1917 strengthened the position by referring to the person holding
the office popularly known as Prime Minister and provided for the use of the
Chequers by the incumbent of the office. Then the Ministers of the Crown Act of
1937 recognized for the first time the office of the Prime Minister by giving
him the salary of ten thousand pounds a year as Prime Minister and First Lord
of the Treasury. The Ministerial Salaries and Members’ Pension Act of 1965, and
the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act of 1972 reiterated it.
In the subsequent phases the office has further been colored and
illuminated with the dawning and hiking of political parties along with the
advancement of Parliamentary democracy, which, in course of time, became varied,
peculiar and complex more due to rise and proliferation of pressure groups,
lobbyists, thinks-tanks, civil societies, professional bodies and associations
of various natures, forms, shades and backgrounds therein. Issues and problems
entailing politics, economics, cultures, religions, developments and so forth
in the context of national, bi-lateral, regional and international environments
and feedbacks had, and are still having, resultant effects on the increase of the
powers and functions of Prime Minister, formerly or informally.
There is no denying the fact that the first victory of the office of
Prime Minister took place when Absolute monarchy was shifted to Constitutional
monarchy, which was definitely a victory for both the people and democracy.
But, ironically enough, the second triumph of the office of the Prime Minister
was stricken and cemented by making Cabinet subservient to the will of Prime
Minister, which was a kind of defeat for Parliamentary democracy, nay, the
people. This was done not by constitutional manner but by informal modes and
manners of politics indeed. And with this, the concept of ‘collective
leadership with PM as head’ got shattered mostly giving delivery to a uni-centic
and centripetal role and rule of Prime Minister that in the end tended to
emerge in the shape and model of Prime Ministerial System of Government ringing
the bell of foreseeable decline of appropriate and expected roles and powers of
Cabinet/Council of Ministers and thus, to our utter surprise, all the possible
roads and avenues to convert Parliament, bearer of legal sovereignty, into a
puppet one got resolved decisively and
politically.
Growth and development of Parliamentary democracy in the developing countries
differ manifestly from the western world for the reason that the jingle of
nationalism and nation- states plays here a leading role in the movement for
independence. It happened largely in the post Second World War where political
parties and their leaders who popularly came to be known as ‘nationalist
leaders’, showed excellence miraculously in their respective landscapes and
ranks and files by virtue of their extra-ordinary charisma full of magnetic and
centripetal force from the standpoints of politics and stimulation. A new type
of leadership under the head ‘Charismatic Leader’ originated and ballooned beyond
assumed ranges and expectations. These Charismatic nationalist leaders rose to
such heights that nobody in the party could think of being equal or even being next
or near to him. Everybody in the relevant hierarchy began to be regarded as simply
a dot before such leaders as if they were the source of everything within and
without.
After independence when such leaders, following Parliamentary democracy,
assumed power through electoral processes, they also began to run the
administration in the earlier period’s mode and style undermining or setting aside
the very basis of collective leadership of Cabinet Government and supremacy of
the Parliament thereto. Consequently, collective leadership was swallowed by
the all-powerful charismatic leaders in their particular contexts.
Situations deteriorated much more when it was further found that all the
three vital offices of power such as the office of the head of the Party,
office of the head of the majority party in Parliament and office of the head
of the Executive branch, commonly referred to as Government, started to get concentrated
in the single hands of the mightiest leader called Prime Minister. Again, for a
number of reasons, known or unknown and explainable or not, Parliamentary
democracy in the developing countries could not, and cannot, flourish and
proceed in line with the goals, targets and pace of developments of the western
world. To cope with the speed of time taking scientific and technological and all
other areas of developments into possible and befitting considerations, there
must have a jump or leap which is earmarked as ‘Leap forward’ in the milieu of
the developing countries. This can hardly be minimized at any rate since Westminster model is not
possible to be reflected in its entirety when a country adopts and accommodates
it in the light of its overall footing and circumstances. That’s why,
historical reality is that no model, whether it is political or economic or
anything else, may be a model proper for any second country. Through a process
of adjustments and readjustments a model is always subject to alterations, modifications
and deductions. This happened, and is happening, also in case of Westminster model of
Parliamentary democracy.
In the present day every institution---- whether it is a state or party
or parliament---- is run by a constitution, which it preserves, protects and
defends with due care and diligence. Constitutional provisions related to the
powers and functions of the Head of the Government, of the Chief of the Party,
and of the Leader of the House in Parliament in their respective contexts are
framed and tailored in such fashions and models that from the reading of very
words and the spirit therein one cannot but be overwhelmed at the generous and lavish
insertions of so many democratic articles, clauses, sections and sub-sections
hanging over the head of the person who is holding the office(s) accordingly.
Interestingly enough, chasm between theory and practice is so wide, which is,
in fact, a U-turn in all most all respects as informal dictates and allegiances
virtually outshine formal get-ups. Above all, person and personality are all
the time considered as a vital factor for such office(s).
Yes, there is no denying the fact that the fundamentals of Parliamentary
democracy are on the wane because of the challenges and dilemmas being created
by the increasing multi-dimensional and multi-various roles, powers and
functions of Prime Minister both formerly and informally. As a result, a new
form of government in the taxonomy of ‘Prime Ministerial System of Government’
has meanwhile made its dominant appearance and presence in the realms of
politics and political science. It is at present held by many assertively, not by
submissively at all that PM in a Parliamentary democracy is in better and more comfortable
position than a President who is both the Head of State and Head of Government
under the Presidential Form of Government.
Therefore, let there be a political realization without a delay that
today a PM under the ongoing Parliamentary system of Government is neither ‘first,
among equals’ nor ‘a moon among lesser stars’ rather she or he is the Sun around
which planets (Cabinet/council of Ministers) rotate. She or He is, under the
cover of Parliamentary System of Government, actually having on head the cap of
‘Prime Ministerial System of Government’.
Prime Minister, in our perspective in Bangladesh, is also like the Sun
and a replica of what Winston Churchill noted in his book ‘Their Finest Hour’
because our PM, currently sheikh Hasina, is holding all the three leading
offices in the single hold and fold. To speak the truth, her overall standing
has further been sharpened, enlightened and strengthened through informal modes
and manners, which sometimes put the formal constitutional boundaries and
limitations in the shade. Here Prime Minister has to poke her nose even into a
matter that should amply be handled by the Minister concerned since PM’s
involvement in almost everywhere and everything
is not only preferred by her but it is also liked by the people at large. This
has generated maxims such as ‘where there is PM, there is a solution’;
‘Ministers are merely puppets looking at the PM dependently for instructions as
to what to do, how to do and when to do’.
No comments:
Post a Comment