In a democratic polity the right to rule a country rests with people's elected representatives. The structure of democratic dispensation varies over countries. In this part of the world we follow the British parliamentary system of democracy. We do not, however, have the bicameral parliament as the British do. The parliamentary process we follow is popularly known as the "West Minster" system of parliamentary democracy. In this system parliament comprises elected representatives from each separate electoral area known as constituency. The leader of the party which commands majority in the parliament is called by the President to form the government. S/he is appointed as the prime minster of the country and is allowed to appoint ministers of his/her government. The prime minister and ministers constitute the government of the country. Usually all or most of the cabinet members are elected MPs.
One of the greatest pitfalls of this system is that voters of the constituencies elect the law makers to represent them in parliament. They do not vote for the election of executive position. One of the elected persons, however, is called upon to assume the office of the prime minister, the chief executive, and is allowed to select the ministers solely according to his/her preference. The ministers hold executive positions and enjoy enviable perks and privilege. Rest of the MPs, at least a part of them, turn envious of the ministers who wield so much power and fortune. The second weakness is that the President identifies the majority leader on the basis of the number of MPs in parliament. The party that commands majority in parliament is allowed to form the government. It may, however, so happen that the majority party in parliament may not command majority in the popular vote. It has happened in many countries including ours that the total number of votes secured by the opposition party was much higher than the votes secured by the majority party in parliament. It points to a serious mathematical inconstancy. This problem has to be addressed and resolved. Otherwise the present flawed system will be abandoned in course of time.
The British system of democratic rule is acclaimed all over the world for its many positive features. In this system the state is run by elected representatives of the people. Citizens expect that elected representatives will establish a fair administration based on democratic principles and empathy for the people in general. This does not happen in reality. The proponents of democratic administration were fully aware of this caveat. The ministers markedly deviate from fair treatment owing to pressure of party men and supporters in the constituency, their own preferences, likes and dislikes, not excluding their whims and idiosyncrasies. Nepotism, favouritism, partisan behaviour and most importantly, corruption, vengeance and autocratic attitude stand against the interest of the people and the country. Such a trend cannot be supported in a democratic polity. It was felt necessary to establish a few institutions in order to restrain the unfair and autocratic behaviour of persons in high position. High-profile constitutional and statutory bodies have been created in line with this rational proposition. These bodies are by definition impartial. Their prime objective is to ensure fair and impartial treatment to all citizens irrespective of caste, creed, colour and political inclination. People believe that political bias, nepotism and unfair dispensation will by and large be done away with because of this arrangement.
SUPREME COURT: One or two examples may clarify the position better. The Supreme Court is a case in point. It is a constitutional body. Honourable judges (Justice) of the Supreme Court will adjudicate in accordance with the provision of the constitution and law without any fear or favour, strictly being faithful to the letter and spirit of their oath. They will dispense justice to all in accordance with the law, irrespective of party's social or economic condition, their link with power nodes. They will give rational decisions based on facts, papers and provisions of the law. No one will be deprived of just treatment because of extra-judicial consideration. The court has the unhindered right to set aside any illegal or unfair order of the government. For such act they are accountable to their conscience. The judges are controller of their own selves. They are not accountable to any executive authority for their action. The chief executive of the country cannot take any punitive action if s/he is ever exasperated with them. Such a bulwark has been erected for the judges to safeguard the interest of citizens at large. Based on the assumption that the government was at times prone to resort to illegal and unfair transactions, states in the democratic world embarked on demarche to bring into being institutions determined to mete out justice to all and sundry. Honourable judges have been granted constitutional protection so that they could bridle the unfair move of the powerful groups. Whenever subjected to unfair dispensation by the powerful groups, the victims can seek redress from the higher court of the country. They firmly believe that the court will save them from the misdeeds of the oppressor.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION: In the Indian subcontinent Public Service Commission (PSC) has been created as a constitutional body. The Chairman and members of the commission are appointed by the President and assume office having taken oath administered by the Chief Justice of the country. The oath specifically emphasises on impartiality, objectivity and integrity. Once appointed, they stay on unencumbered by government's interference. They cannot be relieved of their position just because they do not tow government's line. If the government ever contemplates to remove them, it has to traverse a difficult path bushwhacking the thicket of rules and regulations. The chairman and the members have a spacious degree of freedom to act independently guided by their conscience and the law of the land. People expect that they will select candidates according to performance in the examinations. The selection criteria will be devoid of predilections based on caste, creed, colour and parochialism. It is also expected that they will apply their prerogatives and authority bestowed on them by the constitution and other legal instruments with courage and conviction. Needless to say, such applications have to be fair and not tinged with self-interest.
ELECTION COMMISSION: The Election Commission is another prime constitutional body. It has colossal importance in establishing democratic rule in the country. Flawed national elections are likely to breed a meaningless ineffective parliament. Good governance takes leave of the country. People suffer from extreme despair and angst which in turn degenerate into volatility. In a parliamentary democracy like ours the chief executive of the country and the heads of the ministries are selected basically through elections. They are at the helm of country's administration. If the elections conducted by the commission are afflicted with corruption, violence, discrimination and anarchy we will not get honest and able administrators/rulers through such elections. Sub-standard candidates grossly lacking in ability and integrity will emerge as winners in the competition. Some of them may be perched in the highest echelon of administration. This will wreak havoc for the country. The election commission will therefore have to ensure a foolproof arrangement for holding fair, impartial and flawless elections. They have to sport a determined and bold stance to command the confidence of voters. The contending parties will try their best to clinch the victory by putting formidable pressure on the commission and their field staffs. The commission has to withstand the pressure and construct an environment where the voters can cast their votes freely and have them counted properly before the results are publicly announced. Free, fair and quality elections are not possible if the commission is not manned by efficient, courageous and fair minded persons. Timid, inert, slow, careless, indifferent, inefficient and insensitive persons cannot perform well in a constitutional body. Sub-standard candidates using corrupt means, muscle power and black money are most likely to win elections held under their helmsmanship. High quality men with integrity and ability are booked for defeat in such a situation. They will in the long run shy away from the whole process.
In the federal system of governance the State Governors are considered to be holding constitutional posts. Though some political personalities are at times appointed to these posts, it is expected by people in general that they will rise above partisan mindset while discharging their responsibilities. They will never resort to unfair or unethical behaviour. They will strictly adhere to principles, ethics and morality in order to deliver greatest benefits to the country, the province and the people. They will project themselves as the symbol of honesty, integrity, fairness and principle. Deviation from these features will frustrate the people and fill them with resentment. Image of the constitutional post will be severely jeopardised. Admitting the owners of black money, inappropriate persons or merchants of violence in parliament will render it into a hippodrome. Countries with such parliaments are not rare in the present-day world.
STATUTORY BODIES: Some statutory bodies have been created cloning the content and contour of the constitutional bodies. The Anti-Corruption Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the Information Commission and the Bangladesh Bank are eminent examples in this regard. India's Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) also falls in this category. Heads of these institutions cannot be removed by executive orders all of a sudden. They are vested with enormous power to facilitate their work. Acts that have created these institutions enjoin the heads, their senior staff officers and the principal implementers of the line units to punish the offenders and give relief to the victims. Fear or favour will not deter them from moving in the rightful way. This will ensue good governance in the country. People will live in peace and comfort. Since the offenders will be punished and the victims will get fair treatment offences and misdeeds will decline in course of time. The country will be worth living. A propitious environment will court happy citizens. Such a situation is the natural expectation of citizens from the state.
On the other hand, if the heads of the organisations and the senior officers prefer to be obsequious to the power coterie of the government for material benefits, the state will find itself brought to the brink. There will be no individual or institution to protect the interest of helpless citizens. Also, there will be no room for the citizens to seek redress for their grievances. A section of well-heeled persons will manage to flee the country. Other peace-loving groups who are constrained to stay back will alienate themselves from social transactions and affairs of the state. Silently they will suffer misdeeds and persecution from various quarters. They will be zombies for all practical purposes.
SELECTION CRITERIA: The strict criteria and the rigorous evaluation supposed to be followed in selecting heads of the constitutional and statutory bodies were never applied in our country. Members in the next echelon were also not selected through any well established criteria and process. Necessary data and information about the potential incumbents were not collected and reviewed scientifically before selecting individuals for the post. Records about the integrity, commitment to principles and fairness, courage and boldness were not considered with due attention. Result: But for a few exceptions, persons in constitutional bodies have reduced themselves to typical executives of the government or autonomous bodies. They are as if conditioned to be subservient to powerful groups. The main purpose of their appointment was to restrain the illegal and unfair move of the power lords. Negating the core spirit they keep them busy placating this very group in order to aggrandise their material interest. We were shocked to see that the head of a constitutional body invited the leader of a minority party to form government knowing full well that he did not command majority in parliament. Such unethical and unwarranted behaviour of the organisation's head stands to undermine the organisation and recruit embarrassing kerfuffle even amongst his/her well-wishers, because such a phenomenon threats to damage the whole organisation. People are pushed to despair and helplessness. If courageous individuals committed to ethics and principles are not selected to head the constitutional and statutory bodies these institutions may collapse beyond repair. The state will suffer badly.
Dr. Saadat Husain is a former Chairman of Public Service Commission.
