Mohammad Dulal Mia
Practising Barrister (England & Wales)
From my professional perspective as a British barrister of Bangladeshi origin, parliamentary conduct is not merely a question of etiquette or ceremony. It is closely connected to constitutional governance, democratic accountability and public confidence in representative institutions. The Jatiya Sangsad occupies the central legislative position in Bangladesh. Its effectiveness therefore depends not only on the laws it enacts, but also on the standards of discipline, restraint and institutional respect demonstrated by its members.
Robust disagreement is a natural and necessary feature of parliamentary democracy. Elected representatives must be able to question government policy, challenge assumptions, scrutinise legislation and speak freely on matters of national importance. However, there remains an important distinction between strong parliamentary scrutiny and conduct that prevents Parliament from discharging its constitutional functions. The purpose of Parliament is best served when competing views are advanced through reasoned argument, evidence and persuasion rather than through disorder or obstruction.
Constitutional foundations of parliamentary discipline
The importance of parliamentary discipline is rooted in the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Article 7 recognises that all powers in the Republic belong to the people and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Members of Parliament therefore exercise authority not as a personal entitlement or narrow partisan privilege, but as trustees of the sovereign will of the people. Where parliamentary proceedings are persistently disrupted, the practical exercise of that sovereignty through elected representatives is weakened.
Article 65 further reinforces the constitutional significance of the Jatiya Sangsad by vesting the legislative power of the Republic in Parliament. Parliament is not simply a venue for political contestation. It is the institution through which laws are debated, public expenditure is authorised, executive action is scrutinised and national priorities are tested. This constitutional role requires meaningful participation, informed debate and responsible lawmaking. A disciplined parliamentary environment is therefore essential to the proper functioning of Article 65.
Parliamentary privilege and responsibility
Article 78 grants Members of Parliament important protections in respect of anything said or any vote given in Parliament. This privilege is indispensable because it allows elected representatives to speak freely without fear of external pressure or intimidation. At the same time, parliamentary privilege should be understood as a protection for democratic deliberation, not as an exemption from institutional responsibility.
The freedom to speak in Parliament carries with it a duty to use that freedom constructively and in the public interest. This is why rules of procedure and standards of conduct are not restrictions on democracy. Properly applied, they enable democracy to function. They help ensure that debate remains vigorous but orderly, critical but respectful, and political but still grounded in constitutional responsibility.
The oath and the duty of members
The constitutional obligations of Members of Parliament are also reflected in the oath prescribed under the Third Schedule of the Constitution. Before assuming office, every member undertakes to discharge the duties of the office according to law and to bear true faith and allegiance to Bangladesh. This is more than a formal requirement. It is a solemn commitment to uphold the integrity, dignity and effectiveness of Parliament.
Respect for parliamentary rules, regular participation in proceedings, constructive engagement in debate and adherence to standards of decorum are practical expressions of that oath. The dignity of Parliament is strengthened when members demonstrate that political disagreement can be expressed firmly without undermining the institution through which democratic accountability is exercised.
Democratic accountability and institutional balance
The enforcement of parliamentary discipline has implications beyond procedural order. In a parliamentary system, the executive remains accountable to Parliament through questions, debates, committee scrutiny and legislative review. If proceedings are repeatedly disrupted, Parliament’s ability to examine executive decisions and test public policy is reduced. This may contribute to an imbalance in which executive authority becomes stronger while legislative oversight becomes weaker.
Bangladesh’s constitutional structure requires the legislature, executive and judiciary to perform distinct but complementary roles. Although the system is parliamentary in form, Parliament remains a critical constitutional forum for accountability. A disciplined and effective Parliament therefore supports not only legislative productivity, but also the broader balance of governance envisioned by the Constitution.
Strengthening Parliament through enforceable standards
For this reason, reforms relating to parliamentary conduct should be viewed as measures to strengthen constitutional governance rather than as narrow procedural adjustments. A legally enforceable code of conduct, an effective ethics oversight mechanism, transparent participation records and consistent disciplinary practice would all support Parliament’s capacity to fulfil its constitutional responsibilities.
Such reforms should be applied impartially and with due regard to the rights of both government and opposition members. The objective should not be to suppress dissent or weaken political contestation. The objective should be to protect the institutional space in which dissent can be expressed productively, scrutiny can be conducted meaningfully, and legislation can be considered in the national interest.
Conclusion
The strength of a parliament is not measured by the intensity of confrontation within its chamber. It is measured by its ability to deliberate effectively, scrutinise government action rigorously and legislate responsibly for the people it represents. For the Jatiya Sangsad to fulfil its constitutional mandate, parliamentary debate must remain open, vigorous and genuinely representative, while also respecting the rules that preserve the dignity and functionality of the House.
A strong and enforceable code of conduct is therefore not merely a matter of parliamentary discipline. It is a constitutional necessity. It helps safeguard the sovereignty of the people, reinforce democratic accountability and strengthen public confidence in Bangladesh’s parliamentary democracy.
