People are almost unanimous in maintaining that the most serious problems faced by the country today are corruption, law and order and unparalleled political animosity. While there exists no one panacea to ward off all these evils by one stroke, few politicians recognise that many of these issues can be addressed favourably by way of introducing some measures of reform in our parliamentary system and making a qualitative change of our parliamentarians.

Corruption, for which Transparency International put Bangladesh at the top of its list for four consecutive times, breeds through need and greed. A police constable, whose salary is much lower than the minimum needed to sustain his family, is most likely to fall prey to the temptation of easy money he can earn through unfair means. A high official of the government, who has the authority or is instrumental in awarding contracts or material benefits worth crores of taka to others may also succumb to the temptation of receiving at least a few lacs of taka in kickback. For these two government servants the ostensible compulsion, in most cases, may be the need, but in many other cases greed plays the dominant role. While enhancement of emoluments and facilities would work to curb corruption significantly in public service, the society will still not be able to rid itself of graft. The powerful and the wealthy in the political and private sectors will still remain as purveyors of this social scourge.

The present parliamentary system has been marked with flaws, which, taken appropriate measures, can be substantially removed. One must note that most of our law-givers are generally industrialists, businessmen or well-to-do gentlemen as compared to professionals, educationists and social workers of yesteryears. To win an election today, with commendable exceptions, a candidate has to depend on money and muscle power. He or she is required to spend huge amount of money, sometimes in crores. The only means to recover this expense and to make some surplus, is through irregular means. The unbridled access to public development funds smooth their way to this nefarious design. In order to make our parliamentarians bereft of such criticisms, some of the following measures, though may not be in the same order, call for urgent consideration.

Firstly, the law-givers should confine their work primarily to the task for which they were elected, namely, to introduce and deliberate bills and pass them into laws. They will authorise the government to raise revenues and incur expenditures by passing money bills. Their duty also comprises discussion on national issues and problems in the parliament and imparting direction to the government how best to address them. In the execution of these solemn duties, like in mature democracies, they should not be engaged in other work, handling of government's development and other funds in particular. This should be undertaken by the local political and civil administration. Such a division of functions will deny MPs of the loaves and fishes and consequently limit their avenues for corruption. The long awaited election to the Upazila system is likely to serve this purpose.

Secondly, all parliamentarians should be required to submit statements of their assets, liabilities and incomes both at entry and exit points in the parliament. These should also be accessible to the public on demand. In America and Europe citizens have a means of access to such statements of their public representatives, normally through their Internal Revenue System. In Bangladesh, at present, such statements are supposed to have been filed by the MPs following their election, but they are kept beyond the views of the ordinary public, thereby negating the very objective of such exercise.

Thirdly, members of the parliament being the principal vote-getters are normally viewed by their political leaders as custodian of all interests of their respective political parties. This empowers them enormously in terms of exercising undue direction and interference in various activities and administration in their constituencies. This, evidently, is more applicable to parliamentarians of the ruling party. For example, it is a common practice that an MP appoints himself as Chairman of the Governing Board of most of the higher educational institutions in his jurisdiction, ignoring other eminent persons, thereby opening for himself road to graft in the appointment of teachers and other matters. This and such other practices need to be curbed. These activities should be equitably shared by the parliamentarians with their local political parties, besides, of course, with the civil and political administration as well as local elites.

Fourthly, one should give serious thought over the question of tenure of the parliament. Unfortunately, our experience since 1991 has manifested a degree of intolerance among our political leaders. They are prone to term the victorious party in the general election as having fraudulently obtained success and are generally determined in felling the government before the end of its tenure. Under these circumstances, if we reduce the term of the parliament from five years to four years, which is practiced in many countries, opposition parties will be less energetic in its demand for premature resignation of the government and for a mid-term election. This may perhaps help us save from this undemocratic political culture of forcible and violent hartals as well as economically wasteful and destabilising political movement.

Fifthly, a section of intellectuals have advocated introduction of a bi- cameral legislature instead of the unicameral one as it exists in our country today. This would allow the nation the rich benefit of counsel of the cream of the society in legislative matters and function as a deterrent to rash and improper ventures of the lower house of the legislature.

Finally, time has come to consider introduction, even partly, of the system of proportional representation in our parliamentary election. Under this system, constituencies are larger in size and each holds more than one candidate. The contesting political parties nominate their candidates in order of preference in a constituency and the candidates are elected on the basis of their position on the list of those receiving highest votes. The objective of this system is to allow the political parties choose the best possible candidates, who do not have to depend so much on muscle and money power. To achieve victory devolves on the collective responsibility of the candidates themselves. This system is in vogue in many European and Franco-phone countries as well as in Japan, Sri Lanka and other countries.

If the people want their nation to become truly democratic and prosperous, it is imperative to undertake reforms in various sectors. Parliamentary reforms constitute an important factor, which brooks no delay nor presents any alternative. Time has now come to take a serious look at it in a non- partisan manner and a consensus on this vitally important national issue warrants due consideration of all parties, preferably before the next general election.

M.M.Rezaul Karim, a former Ambassador, is a member of BNP's Advisory Council.