Owen LippertJacob Burkhardt, the great Historian of the Italian Renaissance, tells a story about rewarding success while ensuring accountability. In Florence, a brave captain saved the city from an attack. The city fathers debated how to reward him. Suggestions included giving him wealth, which could corrupt him, or making him mayor, which could lead to dictatorship. One man suggested killing him and erecting a statue in his honor. History does not record the final decision, but a statue of a heroic consigliere stands near the town square.
Bangladesh now faces the challenge of rebuilding government and governance in the wake of the departure of a leader and government who gathered the rewards of power with seemingly little attention to public support other than doctored election results.
Less understood is how to restrain leaders from going too far. The question is not aimed at any particular party: every party has experienced difficulties with leaders making arbitrary decisions. The remedies proposed too often involve just pleas for the executive to be more “sincere”.
What are some pragmatic steps that could rein in the arbitrary behavior of the leader?
Experience in history shows that the only measures that truly are effective are those that could remove power from the executive.
There are three such measures that Bangladesh could consider at this time.
One is well known. It is the removal of sections 70 and 71 in the constitution that forbids an MP from voting on any measure of legislative measure differently than the party leader.
The measure with originally designed to prevent MPs from switching sides because of bribery and or threats these days such abuse is rarely found because of the publicity that now would surround any such decision.
The arguments for removing sections 70 and 71 have been made for decades. Most now believe that MPs should have the right to vote their conscience or the will of their constituents, without having to resign.
It would be healthy for democracy in Bangladesh for MPs to not always be compelled to vote the straight party line. Without sections 70 and 71 the whip of the parties still has the means of making it very difficult and costly for an MP to go against the will of the leader, but it would no longer be impossible. The party leader would have to spend more time consulting the caucus members and listening to their concerns.
But that’s not the end of possible reforms. The one that would excite public interest is the establishment of a genuine Question Period. In the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, India, and elsewhere, the Leaders Question Period (usually Wednesday or Thursday) sets the narrative of who’s ahead and who’s losing. The media gives extensive coverage of the LQP. The reactions to a particularly genuine question can define in many ways the limits of political support.
Similar to the question period are the reports of the Public Accounts Committee. In almost all commonwealth countries — Bangladesh being an exception — the PAC is chaired by a member of the Opposition. The PAC can pose to the PM and Ministers tough questions that can act as the guardrail against arbitrary executive fiscal behavior. The PAC working with the Auditor General provides a critical part of a working machinery of accountability.
Professor Nizam Ahmed now retired from Chittagong University has spent his career outlining improvements in the public affairs committee in Bangladesh to make it a leader among nations. He should be listened to now.
The right of the MP to vote their conscience, a working leader question, and an effective Public Accounts Committee make up the three core institutions of accountability and restraint on arbitrary executive power.
Other measures have been introduced in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. These include the formation of a 1922 committee where backbench MPs have the right to initiate a review of the current leader of the party. The 1922 committee arose out of the experience of the Conservative party at the end of the First World War when it was in coalition with factions of the Liberal and Labour parties.
Canadian and Australian parties started the right of the members of the party at large to vote on reviewing support for the existing leader. Whether Bangladesh leaders would be open to that degree of accountability remains an open question. It is harder to imagine leader reviews in parties where leadership is the family’s possession. They may come in time.
A lot has been written about accountability and governance, However, it’s not that complicated. Successful leaders exhibit humility, whether they believe it or not.
Current and aspiring leaders should probably pray more. This is not to support religion in any particular form.
Prayer is simply a reminder that somebody else is God.
