Abstract
This chapter outlines the conceptual framework of parliamentary democracy and what is popularly called the ‘Westminster system.’ It presents the pivotal position of parliament in the Westminster model as compared with the presidential system. The main feature that characterizes the parliamentary system is its ability to hold the executive to account for its actions and policies. The executive can remain in power so long as it enjoys the support of the majority of MPs. This chapter also asks why parliaments in most developing countries cannot discharge their expected role and assert supremacy over the executive and why parliaments in post-colonial countries do not institutionalize or contribute to the consolidation of their democracies. By contrast, parliaments that have been institutionalized and consolidated in developed countries can assert their supremacy and play the role expected by the Westminster model. A parliament that is not yet institutionalized can hardly exercise its constitutional authority over the executive. This chapter presents the IPU framework of institutionalized parliament against which the post-restoration reform initiatives of Bangladesh Parliament have been analyzed in order to ascertain the present institutional capacity of the Bangladesh Parliament.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In his book Two Treatises, John Locke propounded that consent is the basis of legitimacy of any government. The consent by which each person agrees with others to form a body politic obligates him to submit to the majority. There were two contracts, the one between individuals giving rise to community and the other between community and government. All is for the public good. Such a power can arise only by consent, and though this may be tacitly given, it must be consent of each individual for himself. (Sabine, G. H. (1973) A History of Political Theory, Dryden Press, Rineheart and Winston Inc. N.Y. USA, pp. 490–491). Government is not legitimate if it is not based on the consent of the governed.
- 2.
The UK has adopted an open budget policy since Kenneth Clark and Gordon Brown were the Chancellors of the Exchequer by providing substantial information to the members of parliament in pre-budget discussion. The Indian Lok Sabha adopted the provision of referral of the budget to the standing committees for ensuring informed debates in the general discussion on the budget. Bangladesh recently adopted mid-term budget review to provide more information on the budget implantation scenario under the Medium Term Budgetary Framework (MTBF).
References
Steven Fish, M. (2006) “Stronger Legislatures, Stronger Democracy”, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 17, No. 1, January, pp. 5–20
Ahmed, N. (2011) “Parliament and democratic consolidation in Bangladesh”, Parliamentary Review, Parliamentary Review, Spring, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 53–68
Ahmed, N. (2004) “Parliament and Policy: The Role of the Committees” UNDP-(SPD News Letter, July–December, BIPS, Dhaka
Antonio Gramsci (1958), Passato e Presente, uran: Einaudi, 1952, p. 158 in Islam, S.S. (2002: 134). “Elections and Politics in the Last Decades of the Twentieth Century in Bangladesh” in Chowdhury, M. H (ed.) Thirty Years of Bangladesh Politics, University Press Limited, Dhaka
Bangladesh, The Journal of Legislative Studies, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 34–65 ISSN: 1357-2334 (Print) 1743-9337 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fjls20
Beetham, D. (2006) Parliament and Democracy in the Twenty First century: A Guide to Good Practice, Published by Inter-Parliamentary Union, PO Box 330, 1218 Le Grand Saconnex, Geneva, Switzerland
David Olson (1980) The Legislative Process: A Comparative Approach, Harper & Row, New York, esp. Chapter 1
Diamond, L. (1993) ‘Three Paradoxes of Democracy’, in Larry Diamond and Mark F. Plattner (eds) The Global Resurgence of Democracy, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 95–107
“Elections and Politics in the Last Decades of the Twentieth Century in Bangladesh” in Chowdhury, M. H. (2002) Thirty Years of Bangladesh Politics, University Press Limited, Dhaka
Finer, H. (1965) The Theory and Practice of Modern Government, Methen & Co. Ltd, London
Flinders, Mathew and Alexander Kelso (2011) “Mind the Gap: Political analysis, Public Expectation and the Parliamentary Decline Thesis”, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 249–268
Copeland, G. and S. Patterson (1994) ‘Parliament in The Twenty First Century’ in G. Copeland & S. Patterson (eds) Parliament in the Modern World, Michigan University Press, Ann Arbour, pp. 1–12
Gerald Schmitz, The Role of Opposition in Parliamentary Democracy, http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/bp47-e.htm
Hakim, A. (2002) “Parliamentary Politics in Bangladesh in the 1990s: Consensus and Conflict” in Chowdhury, M. H. (ed) Thirty Years of Bangladesh Politics, University Press Limited, Dhaka, pp. 103–132
Jahan, R. (2014) The Parliament of Bangladesh: Representation and Accountability, The Journal of Legislative Studies, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 250–269
Jahan, R. and I. Amundsen (2012) The Parliament of Bangladesh: Representation and Accountability, CPD-CMI Working Paper 2. Dhaka
John, P. (2012) Analysing Public Policy, London: Routledge
King, Anthony, and Ivor Crewe (2013) The Blunders of Our Governments. London: Oneworld
Knill, Christoph, and Jale Tosun (2012). Public Policy: A New Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Laundy, P. (1995) ‘Members of Parliament and the Citizen’, in IPU, The Functioning of a Parliament in Multi Party Democratic setting, Geneva, pp. 42–44
Lijphart, A. (1984) Democracies: Pattern of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Centuries, Yale University Press, New Haven
Loewenberg, Gerhard (ed) (1971) Modern Parliaments Change or Decline? Aldine Chicago, New York
Lowenberg, G. and Patterson (1979) Comparative Legislatures, University Press of America, New York
Longley, L. and R. H. Davidson (eds) 1998 The New Roles of Parliamentary Committee, Frank Cass, London, p. 2
McIver, R. M. (1950) Ramparts we Guard, Macmillan
Mayhew, David R. (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Mezey, M. L. (1979) Comparative Legislatures. Durham, NC: Duke University Press
Michel, C. (1998) ‘The Principle of Parliamentary Autonomy’, Constitutional and Parliamentary Information, No. 176
Nizam Ahmed (1998) In Search of Institutionalisation: Parliament in Bangladesh, The Journal of Legislative Studies ISSN: 1357–2334 (Print) 1743–9337 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fjls20
Obaidullah, A. T. M. (1991) “Problem of Administrative Reforms in Bangladesh: Institutionalization of Bureaucracy”. Asian Profile, Vol., 19. 1991. pp. 39–60
Rahman, T. (2008) Parliamentary Control and Government Accountability in South Asia, Routledge, London
Russell, M and Philip Cowley (2015) “The Policy Power of the Westminster Parliament: The Parliamentary State and the Empirical Evidence” https://constitution-unit.com/2015/11/26/the-policy-power-of-the-westminster-parliament-the-empirical-evidence/
Sabine G. H. (1973) A History of Political Theory, Dryden Press, Rineheart and Winston Inc. N.Y USA pp. 490–91.
Schmitz, G. (1988) The Opposition in a Parliament System Canada http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/bp47-e.htm
Schwartz, B. (1962) Introduction to the American Administrative law, Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons Publisher, London
Siddiqi, L. K. et al. (1994) Making Parliament Effective: A British Experience, Dhaka
Stapenhurst, R. (2003), “Accountability and Transparency in the Budgetary Process: Parliamentary Oversight of the Budget: Reading, Analyzing and Questioning Parliamentary Tools and Mechanism”, Regional Seminar, Colombo
Stapenhurst, R. et al. (2005) “Scrutinizing Public Expenditure: Assessing the Performance of Public Accounts Committee” WB Policy Research Working Paper, 3613, (May, 2005)
Street, L. A. G. and H. Griffith (1967) The Principles of administrative Law, London, Sir Isac Pitman and Sons
Strong, C. F. (1966) Modern Political Constitution, Sidgwick and Jackson
Taiabbur Rahman, 2008. Parliamentary Control and Government Accountability, Routledge Advances in South Asian Studies, p. 68
Urbaniak, T. (2011) Ministerial Responsibility: A Post Mortem in Leon R.P and Ohemeng L.K. Approaching Public Administration, Edmond Montgomarey Publications, Toronto, Canada
Wade, H. W. R. (1971) Administrative Law, Oxford Clarendon Press
Willoughby, W. F. (1919) Government of Modern States, New York, Appleton Century Crofts. Willoughby http://www.universityofcalicut.info/SDE/Foundations_of_political_science.pdf
Functions of Political Science, http://www.universityofcalicut.info/SDE/Foundations_of_political_science.pdf
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Obaidullah, A.T.M. (2019). Parliament in Parliamentary Democracy: Theoretical-Institutional Framework (Understanding the Westminster Parliament System). In: Institutionalization of the Parliament in Bangladesh. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5317-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5317-7_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-5316-0
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-5317-7
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)