In the backdrop of the use of indecent language by lawmakers from both the treasury and the opposition benches during the ongoing budget session, questions have been raised as to how this could be stopped. Lawmakers around the world are supposed to have a stately image and as a result, members are required to act in an appropriate manner while performing their official business, say civil society members. Although many national leaders are talking about institutionalising Westminster style democracy, they seem reluctant to put a break on the use of unparliamentary language.
Experts suggest a strong role of the Speaker to stop the use of unparliamentary language in the House, which is the common practice in parliamentary democracies throughout the world.
Talking to The Independent, eminent jurist Barrister Rafique-ul Huq said: “I, as a citizen, hate such language by lawmakers in the august House.” It will have a negative impact on the new generation, he said, adding: “It depends on the Speaker’s role. Those who use abusive language in the local dialect in Parliament, should be ousted from the House.”
Rule 270 (vi) of the Rules of Procedure says that while speaking before the august House, a member of Parliament “shall not use any offensive, abusive, vulgar expressions”.
In the British Parliament, criticism and accusations are permitted (often under the cover of parliamentary privilege), but certain types of language are considered too abusive.
Sir Thomas Erskine May in his ‘A Treatise upon the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament’, which is considered as parliamentary Bible, states that “good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language”
According to May’s rules, it is expected that the proceedings of Parliament will be conducted in a courteous and good-tempered manner. MPs should not call another member a liar; suggest another MP has false motives; describe another member as “drunk”; misrepresent another MP’s language and use abusive or insulting language. If an MP uses unparliamentary language during debate, the Speaker will ask him/her to withdraw what has been said.
If an MP refuses, the Speaker may “name” him/her, meaning that the member will be asked to leave the House and remain suspended for five sitting days.
Regarding the proposal to charge a fine for using unparliamentary language in the House, many opposed this, saying that nowhere in the world is there a tradition of imposing fine.
Constitution expert Dr Kamal Hossain, who is now in Holland, told The Independent over the phone: “We have a national consensus to nurture the democratic culture avoiding undesirable words in Parliament.” No party should deviate from the right track to make Parliament vibrant, the senior lawyer said, adding: “I hope the lawmakers will be conscious about their language and constructive role in the House.”
In a Westminster-style democracy, exactly what constitutes unparliamentary language is generally left to the discretion of the Speaker of the House. Part of the Speaker’s job is to enforce the assembly’s debating rules, one of which is that members should not use “unparliamentary” language. That is, their words must not offend the dignity of the House. In addition, whilst in the House, legislators are protected from prosecution and civil actions by parliamentary immunity and consequently are expected to avoid using words or phrases that might be seen as abusing that immunity.
In many parliaments there are ‘code of conducts’ and official lists of unparliamentarily words and phrases but country’s parliament has neither a Code of Conduct’ nor any list of unparliamentary words .
Commenting on this issue Barrister Moudud Ahmed told The Independent on Tuesday that in Bangladesh parliament should also have a Code of Conduct for the members and a list of unparliamentarily words.
If the Treasury would take initiative in this regard we shall extend our full cooperation to them, he said.
In India, which is the largest parliamentary democracy in the world, the Lok Sabha Secretariat has published a 900- page book titled “Unparliamentary Expressions”. The state legislatures are also guided mainly by the same book, which also draws heavily from unparliamentary words and phrases used in the Vidhan Sabhas and Vidhan Parishads of India.
Dr Iftekharuzzaman, executive director of Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB), said only two leaders of the two major parties of the country can stop the use of such language in Parliament.
“Such language do not match democratic norms. Use of abusive words in Parliament is nothing but political bankruptcy. Abusive languages are used both by the ruling and Opposition members for only personal issues, not for political issues.”
The Speaker can oust the lawmaker or switch off the microphone for using abusive language as per rules of procedure, he said, adding: “Our next generation will have a negative image about lawmakers. It is embarrassing for the people. Also, it shows us in poor light in the international arena.” The highest body of political parties can end this culture, he observed.
“There is a draft of rules of business. If it is passed, the lawmakers would be aware about their behaviour and language,” Iftekharuzzaman further said.
In the Australian Senate, the words “liar” and “dumbo” were ordered to be withdrawn and deemed unparliamentary during a session in 1997.
On the other hand, in the Parliament of Canada, some words and phrases have been ruled by the Speakers as “unparliamentary” through the years. Some of these words are: a bag of wind, coming into the world by accident, blatherskite, liar, hypocrisy, hypocrite and evil genius.
The Parliament of New Zealand maintains a list of words, and particularly phrases, that the Speaker has ruled as unbecoming, insulting, or otherwise unparliamentary.
Mujahidul Islam Selim, president of Communist Party of Bangladesh (CPB) said, “Those who plundered people’s assets have bought their nominations for money; these lawmakers are spoiling the parliament by using abusive words against each other. They should be punished as per rules of procedures of parliament.”
-With The Independent input
