Making parliament effective
Photo: skyscrapercity.com
Prime Minister has urged the opposition to abandon its boycott. The speaker reminds the opposition that democracy can be effective only if it plays its role. But why did the two of them, when in the opposition, not prevent the stalling of parliament or the opposition boycott over the caretaker and other issues? It is the ruling party that initiated the tactics of confrontation such as rushing to the well of the House, disrupting zero hour, and slogan-shouting. The opposition leaders know well what they can achieve through active participation in debates and discussions, they cannot achieve through confrontation. True, the entry of tainted persons into the parliament is undesirable but there should be a clear distinction between those convicted of a crime and those facing trial. Stalling parliamentary proceedings does not augur well for democracy. It is the taxpayers' money that is going down the drain. But the ruling alliance is no less to blame because when it was in the opposition, it created pandemonium resulting in frequent adjournments. The only way to stop this menace is to deny votes to those who indulge in unruly behaviour in the House. The opposition alliance's decision of disrupting parliament's functioning is only maligning its political image. The parliamentarians have a moral responsibility to allow parliament to function smoothly. The nation cannot afford to lose the momentum on the economic front. In his days as a war correspondent, Winston Churchill described his experience of being under poor opposition firing thus: "There is nothing more exhilarating than being fired at with no result."
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments