Published: 11:14 PM, 17 September 2026
The Beauty of Parliamentary Democracy
Dr. Forqan Uddin Ahmed
Parliament should never be used as a forum for personal frustration, anger or hostility. As the highest law-making body of the state, its language, behaviour and political practices can shape attitudes throughout society. When lawmakers show mutual respect, respond to opposing arguments with reason and accept disagreement as an essential part of democracy, they promote a culture of political tolerance among citizens. In contrast, offensive language, personal criticism, disorder and disrespect in Parliament can weaken public confidence in politics. In a parliamentary system, the government and opposition are political competitors, not personal enemies. During elections, parties compete for votes and seek citizens’ support for their respective policies and programs. Once elections are over, however, all political actors must operate within the democratic framework and work for the broader interests of the country. The government is responsible for governing, while the opposition monitors its activities, raises questions and ensures accountability. Although their roles are different, both sides ultimately have a responsibility to serve the people. Therefore, political rivalry should remain democratic and respectful, preventing differences from turning into personal hostility, hatred or confrontation.
Parliament is not an institution where lawmakers should express personal anger, frustration or hostility. It is the highest legislative body of the state, and the language, conduct and political culture demonstrated there can strongly influence society. When parliamentarians respect one another, challenge opposing views through logic and accept disagreement as a normal feature of democracy, citizens can also learn the value of political tolerance. In contrast, abusive language, personal attacks, disorder and disrespect can create public distrust and damage the image of politics. In a parliamentary democracy, the government and opposition are political rivals, but they should not become personal enemies. During elections, parties naturally compete for votes and public support for their policies and programs. After elections, however, all political forces must function within the same democratic framework and consider the broader interests of the country. The government is responsible for running the state, while the opposition plays an essential role in questioning government decisions and ensuring accountability. Their responsibilities may differ, but both should ultimately serve the people. Therefore, political competition should remain respectful and democratic, ensuring that differences do not develop into personal hostility, hatred or confrontation.
There is a long tradition of parliamentary debate in different democratic countries of the world. Although governments and opposition parties criticize one another in strong language, efforts are generally made to maintain the limits of parliamentary customs, decency and rules. Criticizing a policy harshly and insulting an individual are not the same thing. A politician may describe a decision as wrong, short-sighted or contrary to the public interest; but the quality of political discourse is not enhanced through personal character or indecent remarks. Rather, the main issue becomes obscured. By mutual negotiations and understanding in parliament, what is meant here is not an exaggerated display of personal relationships; rather, it means mutual respect, cordiality, tolerance and unity in the national interest. There may certainly be differences in political ideology. But there should be at least a minimum consensus among political parties on fundamental issues such as national interest, sovereignty, the fundamental rights of the people, economic development, education, health, employment, combating corruption and social security. Differences of opinion will remain, but there must also be a willingness to work together for the interests of the country and its people.
To make parliamentary democracy effective, political etiquette must be given an institutional form. Just as it is necessary for members of parliament to properly follow parliamentary codes of conduct, their enforcement must also be impartial. If any member makes an indecent statement or harsh speech contrary to parliamentary practice, necessary action should be taken regardless of party identity. The role of the Speaker and the relevant authorities is extremely important here. The parliamentary environment must be such that a member can fearlessly ask questions, offer criticism and express his or her opinion; at the same time, a culture of listening to the views of other members must also develop. The politics of abuse also has a negative impact on society. When political leaders publicly show disrespect one another, intolerance may increase among their followers as well. Political debates on social media become even more aggressive. As a result, differences of opinion easily turn into personal conflicts. In a democratic society, people must be taught fellow feelings, tolerance, sympathy, patience and humanity. There may be the disagreement with opinion, but that does not make anyone enemy. To build this political culture, its beginning must come from parliament itself.
In a democratic country like Bangladesh, Parliament must remain a strong symbol of public confidence and trust. Citizens elect their representatives to make laws, ensure accountability and address the country’s major challenges. When Parliament becomes a forum for meaningful discussion and constructive debate, democracy gains strength. However, when parliamentary proceedings descend into personal attacks, insults and political mudslinging, public confidence is weakened. Therefore, Parliament should be maintained as a place of reason, dignity, policy debate and national interest. Parliamentary democracy reflects a nation’s political culture as well as the views and expectations of its people. Elected representatives are expected to present citizens’ hopes, rights, grievances and demands before the nation. Parliament should therefore serve as a centre for dialogue, evidence, opinion and policy making. Differences between the government and opposition are natural and necessary. The opposition may criticize government policies, identify shortcomings and offer alternative proposals for public welfare. Such disagreement strengthens democracy when conducted respectfully. But when political differences lead to abusive language, personal attacks or disorder, the dignity and effectiveness of Parliament suffer. The present need is therefore clear: replace confrontation and verbal abuse with respect, dialogue and mutual cooperation.
In 2026, Bangladesh's political landscape saw significant developments during the third session of the Thirteenth National Parliament, held from 27 August to 10 September. This session, defined by ongoing political instability and calls for institutional reform, spanned nine working days where six bills were introduced and passed. Key discussions included ministry accountability, reconstitution of parliamentary committees, and contentious debates between the government and opposition. A highlight was the controversial bill abolishing the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) and creating the Special Response Battalion (SRB) under police oversight. The opposition voiced seven objections regarding this bill, advocating for wider national consultation and enhanced accountability. Despite these dissenting views, the bill passed via voice vote, underscoring the critical issue of security reform and its interconnections with accountability, human rights, rule of law, and public trust. This session marked a pivotal moment in Bangladesh's journey toward addressing these complex challenges within its law enforcement framework.
This session highlights accountability issues despite the opportunity to ask questions in parliament. During the third session, 144 questions were submitted to the Prime Minister, but only 15 were answered, indicating a gap in accountability. Conversely, 1,678 out of 2,676 questions directed at various ministers received responses. This disparity suggests that while parliamentary members are engaged in questioning, improvements are needed in obtaining timely and adequate answers from the executive branch. The question-and-answer session is crucial in parliamentary democracy as it allows members to advocate for their constituencies and hold the government accountable for its actions and resource use. Ensuring questions are answered appropriately and promptly is essential for government responsibility. Future sessions should enhance the effectiveness of these sessions through written and oral responses, follow-ups, and ministry-specific progress reports. Additionally, the formation and reconstitution of over 48 parliamentary committees, including three special ones, were significant developments that aid in scrutinizing government activities. The independence, effectiveness, regularity of meetings, and adherence to recommendations of these committees are vital for thorough oversight.
The central lesson of the third session of the Thirteenth National Parliament is that an effective Parliament requires a careful balance between majority authority and respect for opposing opinions, law-making, accountability, as well as state power, constitutional and humanitarian duties. The government should view its majority as a responsibility entrusted by the people, while the opposition should recognize that its role is not to reject every government action. Both sides must put public interest above party considerations. A strong Parliament allows disagreement without hatred, vigorous debate without abusive language, government decisions without ignoring opposition concerns, and criticism without disrupting parliamentary functions. The third session of 2026 has revealed both weaknesses and opportunities. Future sessions should learn from this experience and become more inclusive, accountable and people-oriented. To improve parliamentary standards, regular training, workshops and seminars on parliamentary rules, ethics and codes of conduct should be arranged for lawmakers.
Dr. Forqan Uddin Ahmed is
former Deputy Director General, Bangladesh Ansar and VDP and
Rotary Learning Facilitator, Rotary
Club, Dhaka Elite.
