If an institution like the Jatiya Sangsad, entrusted to discuss national issues and legislate on them where needed, is unable to do so or is not allowed because of some curious dynamics of its own, then there are more than one reason for us to be concerned. To see the parliament not being utilised for the purpose it exists, at great expense to the public exchequer, speaks volumes about the quality of commitment of elected representatives to democracy.

As it is, the current parliament has remained largely dysfunctional with the main opposition choosing to stay away for better part of its tenure. And whenever there was a chance that brought the opposition and the ruling parties together in parliament, which was not very often, and perhaps more by some cosmic intervention than by human volition, and much to the elation of the public's hopes, and whenever there was an indication that it would get down to the business of the state, we are disappointed to witness the crass manner in which some of the parliamentarians conducted themselves. A good part of the parliament's time was spent on mutual recriminations, unparliamentry swipes and unprintable expletives hurled at one another.

And, all this was done when umpteen issues of great national import, which merited the urgent attention of the parliament, went unheeded. The propensity of the treasury bench to stonewall matters was outdone by their ingenuity in dodging debates on which they thought they might be on sticky wicket. Statistical comparisons may be odious but it nonetheless reveals the output of our elected representatives, particularly of those belonging to the treasury bench. In the more than four years of this parliament only four general discussions were held, three of which were issue specific. Whereas, the decade preceding this parliament, even when the opposition had chosen by and large to stay out of it, dozens of issue-based matters came up for discussion on the floor of the house.

We cannot but also note the role of the Speaker in not making the parliament as functional as it could have been. His rejection of as many as a hundred and sixty-two opposition notices only shows how genuine he is in letting national issues be deliberated in the House. What is more disconcerting is his explanations in rejecting the notices that made him look more like a minister parroting the party line rather than the holder of the exalted post of the Speaker. He seems to forget that as the Speaker he virtually belongs to no party and certainly should be beholden to none.

We urge the people's representatives to carry out their responsibilities without wasting the parliament's time or the people's money.