[This was published in Dhaka Courier 0n 23
May 2014]
There are some topics in social sciences in
particular in politics and government/political science that deserve to be
repeated again and over in the context of time, space and dimension. From these
standpoints, this write-up is a kind of extension and reconstruction of the
article under the title ‘Notions centering PM’s role in a parliamentary
democracy’ 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.
To speak the truth, preponderance 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 Parliamentary System of Government,
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.
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 star ‘Sun’ and a replica of what Winston Churchill
noted in his book ‘Their Finest Hour’ because our PM, currently sheikh Hasina
for two consecutive term, is holding all the three leading offices in the single
hold and fold. Speaking pragnatically, 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 powerlessly
for instructions as to what to do, how to do and when to do’.
Dr. Sinha M. A. Sayeed, Chairman of
Leadership Studies Foundation, writer, columnist at sinha_sayeed611@yahoo.com]
At the start of one of my pieces
titled ‘PM’s role in a parliamentary democracy’ I wrote ‘To speak the truth, preponderance 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 Parliamentary System of Government, 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’.
And
at the end of the write-up added ‘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 star ‘Sun’ and a replica of what Winston Churchill
noted in his book ‘Their Finest Hour’ because our PM, currently sheikh Hasina
for two consecutive term, is holding all the three leading offices in the
single hold and fold. Speaking pragnatically, 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 powerlessly for instructions as to what to do, how to do and when to do’.
No comments:
Post a Comment