The issue of accountability and transparency within state institutions is frequently raised during significant public controversies in Bangladesh. Unfortunately, meaningful answers to these concerns are often elusive due to institutional weaknesses. Among the overlooked entities responsible for ensuring accountability are the parliamentary standing committees.
The importance of parliamentary standing committees is enshrined in the Constitution of Bangladesh. Article 76 mandates the formation of these committees, including those for specific ministries, and grants parliament the authority to define their composition and functions through the Rules of Procedure. The primary objective is for these committees to continually monitor the performance and policy implementation of the executive branch, comprising ministries and officials.
Parliamentary oversight is fundamental to democracy, as demonstrated in various countries. For example, in the United States, Congressional committee hearings have compelled influential figures like Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and FBI directors to testify on matters such as data privacy and national security. Similarly, in the UK, Parliamentary Select Committees regularly question ministers on government policies and affairs. These hearings exemplify a core democratic principle: no entity, whether public institution, official, or corporation, should be exempt from scrutiny in a well-functioning democracy.
In Bangladesh, the parliamentary standing committees are designed to fulfill this crucial role. Their responsibilities include reviewing proposed legislation, evaluating ministry performance, scrutinizing public expenditure, and summoning officials and ministers for accountability. These hearings can be conducted privately for national security reasons or publicly when appropriate. Additionally, the committees possess investigative powers to probe irregularities across various sectors.
However, in reality, parliamentary committees in Bangladesh seldom assert their independence and authority to ensure public sector accountability. The strong influence of the executive branch over the legislature hampers the committees’ ability to scrutinize ministries effectively. Often dominated by ruling party members, these committees prioritize party loyalty over accountability, as highlighted in a 2015 TIB report. Moreover, irregular meetings, poor coordination, limited technical support, and low public awareness further impede their effectiveness.
A robust oversight mechanism is essential when governments wield significant executive power. Decisions on critical issues affecting citizens, such as public procurement and digital governance, should be subject to scrutiny by effective parliamentary committees. This oversight can enhance accountability, transparency, and public trust in governance by reviewing administrative actions and offering recommendations.
Consequently, constitutional reform is unnecessary, as Article 76 already outlines the framework for these committees. Instead, efforts should focus on enabling their independent functioning and providing adequate resources to enhance their oversight capabilities.
