From the 3rd session of 13th Parliament

The third session of the 13th National Parliament, held from 27 August to 10 September 2026, illustrates both the importance and the limitations of parliamentary scrutiny.

The nine-working-day session saw six bills introduced and passed, alongside debates over ministerial accountability, parliamentary committees and contentious government-opposition disagreements.

Among the most significant measures was a bill abolishing the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) and establishing a Special Response Battalion (SRB) under police oversight.

The opposition raised seven objections and called for broader consultation and stronger accountability. The bill nevertheless passed by voice vote.

The episode underlines why parliamentary debate matters: major institutional changes, particularly those involving law enforcement, deserve careful scrutiny and meaningful consideration of competing views.

The session also raises questions about the effectiveness of parliamentary questions.

Of 144 questions submitted to the Prime Minister, only 15 received answers. Of 2,676 questions directed to ministers, 1,678 were answered.

These figures suggest that the existence of parliamentary scrutiny is not enough; its effectiveness depends on whether questions receive timely and substantive responses.

Written replies, follow-up questions and ministry-level progress reports could help strengthen this essential mechanism of accountability.

Parliamentary committees offer another important means of oversight. More than 48 committees, including three special committees, were formed or reconstituted during the session.

Their value, however, will depend not simply on their number but on their independence, regular meetings, thorough scrutiny and the extent to which their recommendations are taken seriously.

However, a parliament is meant to be a place where political differences are tested by argument, not by insult.

It is the country’s principal forum for making laws, scrutinising government and debating matters of public importance.

When proceedings descend into personal attacks, abusive language or disorder, the damage extends beyond the chamber.

It risks reinforcing a political culture in which disagreement is treated as hostility and opponents as enemies.

That distinction matters. In a parliamentary democracy, the government and opposition are competitors, but they are not personal adversaries.

Elections settle who holds power for a period; they do not remove the responsibility of all political actors to operate within the same democratic framework.

The government must govern, while the opposition must scrutinise, question and hold it to account. Both roles are necessary, and neither is served by turning political disagreement into personal confrontation.

Strong parliamentary debate is neither new nor undesirable. Governments should expect scrutiny, and opposition parties should be able to challenge decisions robustly.

But there is a fundamental difference between attacking a policy and attacking a person.

A decision can be described as misguided, ineffective or contrary to the public interest; personal abuse adds little to the argument and often obscures the issue that Parliament is supposed to examine.

This does not mean that political parties must agree.

They will continue to differ over ideology, economic policy and the direction of the state.

But democratic politics also requires a minimum degree of common ground on matters such as national interest, sovereignty, fundamental rights, development, education, healthcare, employment and social security.

Disagreement is inevitable. The ability to disagree without treating the other side as an enemy is what makes that disagreement democratic.

The responsibility for maintaining standards cannot rest solely on individual restraint.

Parliamentary etiquette must be backed by clear rules and their impartial enforcement.

Members should be free to question ministers, criticise policies and express dissent without fear.

Equally, they must accept that other members have the same right to be heard.

The Speaker and relevant parliamentary authorities therefore have an important role in ensuring that standards of conduct apply consistently, irrespective of political affiliation.

The consequences of parliamentary behaviour are not confined to Parliament.

Political leaders are watched by millions of citizens, and particularly by their supporters.

When public figures normalise hostility and disrespect, political discussion outside the chamber can become more confrontational.

Social media can amplify this tendency, turning differences over policy into personal disputes.

Parliament should instead model a political culture in which disagreement is compatible with patience, tolerance and mutual respect.

The broader lesson is straightforward. A parliamentary majority is a mandate to govern, but it is also a responsibility to listen.

An opposition has a duty to scrutinise, but scrutiny does not require permanent obstruction.

Parliament works when both sides recognise that political authority and political accountability are complementary rather than competing principles.

Bangladesh needs a Parliament in which disagreement is vigorous but civil, criticism is forceful but substantive, and political competition does not become personal hostility.

Better enforcement of parliamentary rules, together with regular training on procedure, ethics and codes of conduct, could help raise standards.

Ultimately, the dignity of Parliament is not a matter of ceremony. It is closely tied to the quality of democratic government.

If elected representatives cannot disagree with one another without descending into abuse, citizens have little reason to expect greater civility elsewhere.

Parliament should therefore set a higher standard: argument over insult, scrutiny over confrontation, and public interest over partisan hostility.

(The writer is former Deputy Director General, Bangladesh Ansar and VDP)