Balancing the President's and the Prime Minister's executive responsibilities
Under the current arrangement, the government is involved in the formulation and appointment of constitutional and statutory bodies. Decoupling the Parliament from these activities can make ensure increased transparency and efficiency of governance
In its 27-point state reform plan, announced on the 19th of December 2022, Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) outlined a 'Structural Reform' agenda that promises radical changes in our government structure.
Point 4 of the reform proposal reads: The executive power of the President, the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet of Ministers will be balanced. The proposal does not explain the nature of the balance BNP talks about. Neither did the media take the proposal seriously.
This article examines whether there is any merit in BNP's proposal.
The parliamentary system of government evolved in Britain. In this 'Westminster' style democracy, the King is sovereign, and the people are his subjects. All this is ceremonial because the King has no legislative or executive authority.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
The House of Commons carries out all these functions in the King's name and becomes law after his consent. Because of the nature of this legislative and executive authority, the King is called a titular or ceremonial head of the state. This, however, does not mean that the King's role in the parliamentary system is insignificant.
His role becomes visible when the government falls into political crises it cannot resolve. Our constitution too, is founded on this principle with an exception. In the Westminster style democracy, there is no restriction on the head of the state on executing their official duty. This is not the case in Bangladesh.
Except for appointing the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Election Commission, the President must act on the Prime Minister's advice.
The constitutional provision that the President does not require the PM's advice on appointing a new PM is redundant. The President cannot use their judgement in selecting the prime minister because the constitution describes how this function shall be performed.
Our government performs its functions with three kinds of agencies. The first type is the government offices under the direct control of different ministries. The second type comprises constitutional bodies.
The constitution has also made provisions for forming several constitutional bodies such as the election commission, public service commission, and supreme court. The parliament creates these bodies to fulfil its constitutional requirements, which are supposed to operate independently. The final type of public agency is called a statutory body.
Statutory bodies, which are supposed to function independently, are created by the act of the parliament to meet specific public functions. Therefore, there is no difference between Constitutional and statutory bodies except that the former is created to meet the constitutional requirement, while the parliament establishes the latter to meet its political vision, usually underscored in an election manifesto.
To appreciate the nature of the difficulties BNP highlighted in its reform proposal, which reads more like an election manifesto, let us examine some constitutional and statutory bodies.
Consider the Bangladesh Public Service Commission (BPSC), a critical constitutional body. This body has been created with a clear mandate to select suitable and qualified young people to serve the Republic.
Few will consciously argue that this body is functioning following its constitutional mandate. The reason is that the government's selection process for appointing the management team is unacceptably corrupted by party bias.
Next, consider public universities and the University Grants Commission. Both are statutory bodies established by the Acts of Parliament. Again, the government appoints the UGC's management team.
It also appoints Vice-Chancellors of all public universities, except four – Dhaka, Rajshahi, Chittagong and Jahangirnagar. The President, the Chancellor of all public universities, signs appointment letters prepared by the concerned Ministry. Other than this, the Ministry has little control over them.
Our public university system is almost anarchic. The UGC, supposed to be the supervising and monitoring authority, has little control over the public university Vice-Chancellors.
On the other hand, the government has no control over the VCs. Given that public university VCs enjoy almost an autocratic authority, the management performance of these institutions critically depends on the VCs' academic competence and personal integrity.
That is, the current system of appointing VCs for public universities could be more efficient and effective. First, it allows political consideration to override academic competence in appointing a VC.
Second, the government falls into an awkward position when its appointees become highly controversial for their administrative and management activities. In the ordinary case, the government refrains from taking any action because of its involvement in the selection process.
The primary purpose of this article is to explore avenues to increase the President's involvement and contribution to public administration. The avenue, which seems most desirable constitutionally and in practice, is to transfer the authority for appointing the management teams of all constitutional and statutory bodies to the President.
Once the government is freed from the responsibility of appointing management teams for the constitutional and statutory bodies, it can effectively supervise and monitor these agencies' activities and performance.
To achieve this goal, the government must amend Article 48(3) to free the President from the constitutional obligation of taking the PM's advice.
The author is a former faculty at the Department of Agricultural Finance faculty, Bangladesh Agricultural University. He lives in Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.
