What kind of parliament do we really want?

Bangladesh is at a critical moment in its democratic journey. As we approach the next parliamentary elections, it is worth asking a fundamental question: what kind of parliament do we really need, and how can it serve the people in a meaningful way? This is not just a question for political elites or analysts; it is a question for every citizen who expects parliament to protect their rights, ensure accountability, and guide the country toward development.

One of the most pressing challenges our democracy faces today is the entanglement of business and politics. Many MPs are simultaneously engaged in significant business activities. They might own construction companies, operate in the power sector, or be involved in large contracting projects. In many developed democracies, such dual roles are strictly limited or prohibited. The reasoning is simple: if you are responsible for making laws, monitoring government departments, and overseeing public spending, you cannot also have personal business interests that depend on government decisions. The potential for conflicts of interest is enormous.

Yet in Bangladesh, such restrictions are minimal or absent. MPs can continue to run businesses while holding office, and in practice, this creates situations where personal profit can influence public decision-making. Take, for example, a parliamentarian who owns a construction business and simultaneously sits on a committee responsible for overseeing roads and bridges. How can such an MP objectively scrutinize contracts, timelines, or costs without their business interests coming into play? It is unrealistic to expect full impartiality. I believe that barring MPs from running businesses while in office would be a transformative step. It would allow lawmakers to focus entirely on legislation, oversight, and public service without divided loyalties or distractions.

Illustration: TBS

Equally important is the issue of local government. Effective democracy is built on the strength of local authorities. In Bangladesh, however, power remains highly centralized. Over 90% of public funds flow through the central government, leaving only a tiny fraction for local governments to manage. By comparison, in countries with strong democratic traditions, nearly half of public spending is handled locally. Without empowered local government, development becomes inefficient, and MPs feel compelled to intervene in local affairs, often in ways that serve political or personal interests rather than public need.

Consider Dhaka city, where traffic lights, footpaths, and pedestrian crossings fall under multiple authorities—city corporations, electricity boards, and the police. No single entity has the authority to act decisively. This fragmentation creates bottlenecks, delays, and inefficiencies that directly affect citizens' lives. Strengthening local government would not only solve these practical problems but also free MPs to focus on legislation and oversight at the national level. It would allow them to engage in meaningful policymaking rather than micro-managing projects for personal or political gain.

Accountability is another area where our parliamentary system must improve. Constitutionally, the cabinet is collectively responsible to parliament, and individual ministers are expected to answer for the performance of their ministries. Yet in practice, prime ministers often absorb responsibility for nearly everything, concentrating power at the top and leaving gaps in oversight. A mature parliament would hold each minister accountable for successes and failures within their portfolio. It would require ministers to answer tough questions, provide timely reports, and ensure that government departments operate efficiently and ethically.

Corruption is closely tied to this lack of accountability. Agencies like the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) have limited reach relative to the scale of corruption in the country. A more empowered parliament, equipped with functional oversight committees and the ability to demand detailed reports from ministries, could help bridge this gap. Unfortunately, MPs who continue to run businesses are rarely positioned to perform this role effectively, as their personal interests may conflict with the public good.

Knowledge and research support is crucial for parliamentarians to do their jobs well. MPs need access to evidence, data, and analysis to make informed decisions. Committees require well-resourced secretariats, and lawmakers need access to libraries and research teams to understand issues in depth. Without these tools, parliamentary work becomes reactive and superficial, reducing the effectiveness of legislation and oversight. A parliament that is uninformed cannot serve the people properly.

There is, however, reason for cautious optimism. The next parliament is likely to include many newcomers who were not part of previous parliaments. They are less burdened by old habits and entrenched practices, and this fresh perspective could bring meaningful change. New MPs have the potential to focus on public service rather than personal or political gain. If they are supported by strong research teams, independent secretariats, and functioning oversight committees, they could help transform parliament into a truly effective institution.

Yet, meaningful change will not happen overnight. It requires structural reforms that address conflicts of interest, strengthen local government, and ensure ministerial accountability. It requires resourcing parliament with the tools, information, and staff needed to scrutinize government actions. Most importantly, it requires a cultural shift in which MPs understand that their primary duty is to serve the public, not their own businesses or political ambitions.

The parliament we need is one where laws are debated openly and evidence-based decisions guide policymaking. It is a parliament where local governments are empowered, ministries are held accountable, and MPs use research and data to make decisions that genuinely benefit citizens. Such a parliament would not only strengthen democracy but also foster sustainable development, improve governance, and reduce corruption.

At the heart of this transformation is a simple principle: public service must take precedence over personal gain. Only then can we hope to see a parliament that functions as it should—a place where elected representatives focus on solving real problems, protecting citizens' interests, and guiding Bangladesh toward a more prosperous future. The road to such a parliament is long and challenging, but the journey must begin now.

Bangladesh needs MPs who are free from conflicts of interest, local governments with real power and resources, ministers who are held accountable, and lawmakers who are equipped to make informed, evidence-based decisions. Only then can we ensure that parliament serves its true purpose: safeguarding democracy, overseeing government, and working relentlessly for the public good. The next generation of MPs has an opportunity to set a new standard. If they rise to this challenge, the people of Bangladesh will benefit, and the foundations of our democracy will be stronger than ever.

Abridged from an interview on 'What Kind of Parliament Do We Want' hosted by TBS' Executive Editor Shakawat Liton.

Dr Shahdeen Malik is a Constitution Expert.