Parliamentary Democracy in Bangladesh Abstract
The focus of this paper is to review the era of parliamentary democracy in Bangladesh since it’s emergence in the year 1991. The raison d'etre of our war of independence was parliamentary democracy, and that commitment had been reflected in her Constitution in 1972. Still 20 years took for the light to shine in her political history which was already marked by a mixed and scandalous culture. Parliamentary democracy first came into being in 1991 when Bangladesh national party ,one of the two ever present force in political arena took power after national election .The main emphasis is on the working of parliamentary democracy after
…show more content…
After 1975 this country was mainly run by military backed puppet governments .Time to come was unpredictable and politics was in turmoil.
The political parties were in no man’s land. Practice of democracy was nowhere to be seen. During the long term (1976-1990) of military rule the institutions which have been mostly damaged but which are considered as the pivotal force is the party system in the country The shift of power in military had given rise to two autocratic rulers President Ziaur Rahman and
President Hussain Mohammad Ershad , the later running a notable 9 years rule before handing over the power to a caretaker government in1990.The election that followed brought about Bangladesh National Party to be the political party to govern Bangladesh for the preceding 5 years to come. The historic 12th constitutional amendment bill that was passed in the Jatiya
Sangsad on 6 August 1991 introduced parliamentary form of democracy in place of the presidential one. Begum Khaleda Zia, wife of Late President
Ziaur Rahman took oath as the prime minister under the new system on 19
September 1991.
Parliaments in Bangladesh
The complete list of all the parliaments of People’s Republic of Bangladesh is stated in the following
There are two types of democracies, direct democracy and representative democracy. As one would expect, the two are very similar. Direct democracy and representative democracy are both systems of government in which power lies with the people whom are govern though the power of voting. The power of voting is how both systems emphasis the importance of people’s rights. There is also a common sense of self-empowerment to the people being govern in both types of government due to this right. Furthermore, there is a mutual prominence towards majority rule in the two systems.
political party holds the most power in the government. For example, if the Democratic party
Regime Parties and Realignments- The topic of party realignment was one that was brought up during lecture. Critical realignment theory has stated that some Presidents have played a larger role in the realignment of their parties. The definition of a critical realignment is when the parties and the issues that are at the forefront of the American attention change. Realignments have often been the result of a pressing issue coming to the forefront of Americas attention and allowing for third parties to arise and challenge the two major parties of that era. They often cause huge strains on the ideology and strength of the party because these issues cause rifts within the party weakening its structure. Richard Hofstadter recognized that a new issues arose around the elections of 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, and 1932 and that the Presidents who won those elections all benefited by taking a stance on that issue.
From this point in history forward, sectionalism takes a huge role in the role, and influence of the
Dealignment has contributed to the decilne in political parties because it has caused an increase in split-ticket voting and people have started to identify themselves as independents instead of part of a major political party. Political machines have also contributed to the decline of political parties because they were ran by a specific person, taking power away from the political groups.
It could be argued, however, that the two party system which was once in place is declining, meaning more parties have a realistic chance to achieve role as government. In the last thirty years the support for the Conservative and Labour parties has been gradually decreasing, leaving them with only 67% of the vote at the 2005 general election, which was the smallest percentage they’d gained since 1918. This is an example of partisan dealignment because the working class started to transfer their party support to Conservative instead of Labour. The Liberal Democrats support was significantly increasing, leaving them with 22% of the vote in the 2005 election as well as 62 seats. Their seat numbers had been increasing since 1974 when they only had 14 seats in parliament, suggesting a change in the dominance of only two parties. Today, the Liberal Democrats, who haven’t been considered a main party since, are currently the weaker part of a coalition government, with Labour in opposition. This shows a clear end to the two party system, with three parties in significant places of power.
Every country differs in their preference of political system to govern their countries. For democratic countries, two possible choices of governing are the presidential system and the parliamentary system. Since both the presidential and the parliamentary systems have their own strengths and weaknesses, many scholars have examined these two forms of government, and debate on which political system is more successful in governance. In this paper, I will first provide a detailed analysis of both the parliamentary and the presidential system. I will also evaluate each system’s strengths and weaknesses, addressing any differences as well as any commonalities. Finally, I will conclude by using historical examples to analyze and support the
Australia, a country with a population of more than 22 million has quite the complex governmental system. Australia is known as a federation, a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy all in one. As a result, Australia has a queen, who resides in the United Kingdom, but is represented by a Governor-General in Australia. Following, a Prime Minister governs the country. In addition, there is a two-chamber Commonwealth Parliament that makes the laws. This diverse government is often referred to as the Westminster System. The goal of this paper is to examine Australia’s representative parliamentary democracy and if it is effective.
Post-1993 until the present has been characterized by a multi-party system. The rise of several new competitive parties, including the New Democratic Party, Reform party, and the Bloc Quebecois, meant that the need for full party support in passing legislation increased as a result of the votes being spilt among many parties (Malloy 2000, 116 – 117). As a result it was determined that the only way that governments are going to be successful is if they are able to control their members (Hazan 2000, 1). Party discipline arose a
Over the recent years, there have several shifts of power between political parties and which holds majority of the house.
The structure of a governments and party systems are of crucial importance for the functioning and well stable effective government. In this case let’s take example of United States and United Kingdom.
When it comes to political factors, the government stability, taxation policy, social welfare policies and trae regulations shoule be considered.
Analysis of a long period (1947-1971) needed for the independence of Bangladesh is mainly depicted in this book. Analysis of why a
Since the initiation of the Third Wave of Democracy, several countries have attempted to form a democratic system of governs. We take note that not all have succeeded. At the dawn of this era, democracy was being applied to countries with no prior history of a governing body that was place by the people for the people hence success of such a system could not be guaranteed because of the innumerous variables that existed in each country. People being the highlighted factor of variance, it may become easier to understand how countries such as Pakistan and Nigeria, both countries prior to the Wave had no local governing machinery. Pakistan further endured a partition from India which resulted in not only an instant religious and
The author has been able to fulfill the target of the book, which is to test and answer the questions raised by critics through the provision of evidence of the reason no democracy exists at the present. The author presents the arguments in a chronological way that gives a better understanding of the past, today, and prospective future of democracy. The root of the present democracy is stated in the book and lays the basis of the other arguments in the book. Dahl argues that there are conditions that any state should attain in order for it to be considered as a democratic