Whether one calls the events of 2024 a mass uprising or a revolution, it ultimately paved the way for a credible election through which the people of Bangladesh elected the current Parliament. Alongside discussions on the budget, Members of Parliament (MPs) are also speaking on a range of other issues. As in the first session, the current one has also begun to generate considerable heat. Unfortunately, it is not constructive debate that is creating this intensity, but rather the use of unparliamentary language and conduct.
Fifty women Members of Parliament have joined during this second session, bringing the total number of MPs to 350. These individuals are the representatives and leaders of 180 million people. How have they conducted themselves before the nation? Thanks to television broadcasts and social media, the public has been able to witness their behaviour firsthand.
Have our MPs ever sought to understand how ordinary citizens perceive their conduct in Parliament? Even if they have, they may have received filtered opinions from loyalists and sycophants rather than the genuine sentiments of the public.
Parliament is not merely a building. It is the centre of national thought, the workshop of lawmaking, and the visible stage of democracy. Language spoken there is not merely uttered; it becomes part of history.
We have a new government and renewed expectations. Yet some old scenes have returned. Loud speeches, shouting, sarcastic remarks, provocative comments, and desk-thumping have once again become familiar features of parliamentary proceedings. At times, personal attacks also creep into debates. Such behaviour naturally raises an important question: What should parliamentary language be like?
Language in Parliament should be measured, rational, clear, and dignified. Parliamentary speeches should be relevant, informative, and policy-oriented. The primary responsibilities of Parliament are to enact laws, formulate policies, and ensure government accountability. Therefore, discussions should revolve around these core functions. This does not mean that issues beyond the immediate legislative agenda cannot be discussed. On the contrary, any matter of significant public concern may – and should – be raised in Parliament.
Problems arise when discussions drift away from facts and logic, devolve into personal attacks, or become overwhelmed by emotion. The Rules of Procedure of Parliament provide clear guidance on these matters. Members are instructed not to use offensive, disrespectful, or objectionable language. Personal allegations are prohibited unless supported by evidence and brought through proper procedures. Discussions on matters under judicial consideration are restricted. Compliance with the Speaker’s rulings is mandatory. In other words, the rules exist. The framework exists. The challenge lies in enforcement.
History shows that this problem is not new. Heated debates have occurred throughout the history of Bangladesh’s Parliament. Arguments have been intense and criticisms severe. Yet it was not always the same. In the early years, debates were often sharp but generally restrained in language. Speeches were longer, evidence was presented, and opposition parties criticised governments vigorously while largely remaining within the boundaries of reasoned argument.
Gradually, however, things began to change. Political polarisation increased. A culture of parliamentary boycotts emerged. Attendance declined. And when attendance did occur, it was often accompanied by louder and more confrontational behaviour. There have been sessions during which parliamentary business was virtually paralysed by slogans, protests, and disorder. Laws were passed with little or no meaningful debate. Such practices have undermined the dignity and effectiveness of Parliament.
Why is the language of Members of Parliament so important? Because they serve as role models. Their behaviour influences society. Parliamentary proceedings are broadcast on television and widely shared on social media. Young people and students watch them. They learn how public debate should be conducted. If they see that shouting is the way to prevail, that becomes the lesson. If they see reasoned argument and respectful discourse, that becomes the standard.
Language in Parliament should be firm but courteous; critical but respectful. Opposition to government policies is not only permissible – it is essential to democracy. However, when criticism turns into personal attacks, it diminishes the stature of Parliament itself. The same principle applies to parliamentary agendas. Any matter affecting the public interest may be discussed in Parliament. Inflation, unemployment, law and order, education, healthcare, economic policy, and other issues affecting the lives of citizens are all legitimate subjects for debate. Even international developments may be discussed when they have implications for the country.
Several factors are important in improving the parliamentary environment. These include political culture, internal party discipline, the firmness and neutrality of the Speaker, and public expectations. Most of these principles already exist within parliamentary rules and conventions. Yet political leaders do not always observe them.
There have been positive examples in the past. Some sessions featured lengthy and substantive policy debates. Budgets were discussed in detail. Opposition parties submitted amendments, and the government responded. Such parliamentary engagement strengthens democracy.
In today’s context, the issue has become even more significant. In the age of information technology, every word spoken in Parliament can spread instantly. A single irresponsible remark can go viral within minutes. The damage is not limited to the individual concerned; it can affect the image of Parliament as a whole.
Members of Parliament therefore carry greater responsibility than ever before. They should remember that they are not merely representatives of political parties. They are representatives of the state. Their words often become the voice of the nation. If Parliament can foster a culture of dialogue, political polarization may be reduced. If reason prevails over rhetoric, policymaking will improve. If civility is maintained, democracy itself will be strengthened.
Shouting is easy. Reasoning is difficult. Disorder may attract immediate attention, but it rarely produces lasting solutions.
If Parliament is to become truly effective, reforming its language and culture is essential. This is not a minor issue. It is a matter that reflects the quality of our democracy. Parliament is not merely a place for speaking. It is a place for fulfilling responsibilities – responsibilities owed not only to oneself but also to the nation and its people.
May the culture of shouting and verbal aggression in our Parliament come to an end. May the Jatiya Sangsad become a center of informed, evidence-based, and reasoned debate that guides the nation toward a better future.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author
The writer is a Senior journalist and former President, Moulvibazar Press Club
