Form of Government - Bangladesh Independence

Introduction

In 1971 Bangladesh became independent from Pakistan. Bangladesh opted for a parliamentary democracy following independence in 1971 in which establishment of a sovereign legislature was sought. However, the country was ruled under different types of government afterwards.

In December 1972, a new constitution came into force which created a strong executive prime minister, a largely ceremonial presidency, an independent judiciary, and a unicameral legislature on a modified Westminster model. From 1975 to 1990 Bangladesh was under the military form of government.

However, Bangladesh was never ruled by any kind of ideological form of government. Since 1991 Politics of Bangladesh takes place in a framework of a parliamentary representative democratic republic, whereby the Prime Minister of Bangladesh is the head of government, and of multi-party system.

My choice of the form of Government

There has been lot of discussion and debate over the form of governments, which is best, or which is suitable. There are so many vast differences between the various forms. As a consequence, it is very difficult to pin down the single factor that most closely ties to "goodness." The values behind a form of government may determine its agreeability to a particular individual or group. On the contrary, its corruptibility determines how likely it is to adhere to those values in the real world, when subjects to rigor of human nature.

However from my viewpoint, amongst all the forms of government this Parliamentary form of Government is the best form of government for Bangladesh.

Features of the Parliamentary form of Government:

* Clear differentiation- The parliamentary system typically has a clear differentiation between the head of government and the head of state, with the former being the Prime Minister and the latter, the President. The Prime Minister is the chief executive and, together with the Cabinet, exercises executive power or the authority to form and implement policies and programs.

* The members of the cabinet are chosen by the Prime Minister- The members of the cabinet are chosen by the Prime Minister from the members of parliament and can come from the same party or from a coalition of parties. The head of state, meanwhile, are the President, often elected by a designated electoral college as a figurehead with ceremonial powers.

* Fusion of Power- In the parliamentary system, there is fusion of powers between the executive and the legislative branches. This union serves to facilitate the exercise and coordination of governmental powers and functions to formulate desired policies and implement programs of government.

For some parliamentary governments, legislatures can only amend legislation on narrow terms. There are a few permanent or standing committees in the parliament that assist in the drafting and review of legislation.

Given its close association with the legislative branch, the executive can be made more accountable for its performance since they are answerable to the members of parliament.

There are two ways by which the Prime Minister and the rest of the Cabinet can be asked to step down. The first is through a vote of no-confidence by the legislature often initiated by an opposition party or coalition of opposition parties. This may or may not result in extraordinary elections. The other route is by virtue of a party vote, which does not force a new round of legislative elections.

The Prime Minister, as long as he/she enjoys the confidence of the majority of the House, can dissolve the Parliament and call for early elections.

Major reasons for choosing the form

Major Reasons of Choosing Parliamentary Form of Government:

I. In parliamentary system people can elect their own representative in decision making process. Thus participation of people is ensured and their needs and values are reflected in the policy that affects their lives.

II. Opposition can challenge government's decision. Thus government cannot easily pass any bill that is not compatible with interest of the general public.

III. Unlike presidential system there is no clear cut separation between executive and legislative body. Thus it is easier to implement legislation.

IV. This system ensures accountability of the representatives.

V. It guarantees more transparencies.

VI. People have freedom of expression which is completely impossible under military form.

VII. Unlike presidential system it does not have any tendency towards authoritarianism.

VIII. Changing leadership of the government is relatively easier than that of presidential or any other form.

Reasons for not choosing the other forms

A. Presidential Form of Government:

Some political scientists say that presidential form of government is not constitutionally stable. According to some political scientists, such as Fred Riggs, presidential form has fallen into authoritarianism (highly concentrated and centralized power control) in nearly every country it has attempted.

Critics, such as Dana D. Nelson in her 2008 book BAD FOR DEMOCRACY sees the office of the presidency in the United States as essentially undemocratic; and sees presidentialism as worship of the presidency by the citizens which tends to undermine civic participation.

A presidential system establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. It reduces accountability by allowing the president and the legislature to shift blame to each other. It is also claimed that the difficulty in removing an unsuitable president from office before expiration of his or her term is a significant problem.

B. Military or Autocratic Form of Government:

The supporter of autocracy claim benevolent dictatorship can create better society and push economic growth and the example of China and many other countries shows the positive indications of dictatorship. However, it cannot be an acceptable