One of my good friends, who is a specialist in gender studies and served for many years in the UN, always keeps his ears open to nab anybody who, according to him, is a male chauvinist pig because he uses “he” and “his” when whatever follows applies to both sexes. Since he always catches me, I try to argue that “He/She” or “(S)he” looks less aesthetic typographically, and in any case it is always obvious from the context that a common gender is implied. But he is as unforgiving as the first MSWord program I used, where, as a test, I wanted to grammar-check “Man is mortal”, and was told by Bill Gates and Co. that I was being sexist, and should change my sentence to “Human beings are mortal”.
In England, whose parliament we are supposed to copy, sans the Upper House but with as powerlessly ceremonial a Head of State, the Speaker is usually addressed as “Mr Speaker, Sir”. When Betty Boothroyd was elected Speaker, she requested everybody to address her as “Madam Speaker”, but when Betty Harvie Anderson served in the 1970s as a Deputy Speaker, she did not mind being called “Mr Deputy Speaker”. However addressed, the Honourable new Speaker of Bangladesh Shirin Sharmin Chaudhury, is unique in many ways.
She is only 46, young enough to be the daughter of many of our senior MPs whom she has to hold in control. In terms of political affinity, activism and experience she is even younger, and had to get a reserved seat without being directly elected, and I know many eyebrows have been raised in her own party on this account. On the other hand, only two other persons with a similar glorious academic record have ever sat in the House since the birth of Bangladesh — Prof. B. Chowdhury and Dr Abdul Moyeen Khan. But there too she has an edge, having specialised in law, especially constitutional law. Our honourable Speaker is unique.
So, like my friend who is always searching for male chauvinists, I began to watch the performance of this lady with sharp eyes. When we were students in England, BBC was showing an intriguing serial on the rivalry between two politicians, both seeking the position of the PM with equal intensity. Finally one of them gave up and asked his rival for the position of the speaker. The victor was stunned, “Do you know what this means?” “Yes, I do”, his former rival replied humbly. An English speaker has to give up politics for ever. He cannot have any party links, and cannot even socialize with his closest friends. He cannot hold any other office ever after. His re-election as an independent candidate is ensured as no major party fields a candidate in his constituency. So he is secure, and with no higher ambitions. He does not need to satisfy anybody and can give his rulings with total impartiality.
As I watched the Honourable Speaker, I was impressed. Unlike her predecessors she did not keep an eye on the members on the front row on her right. The long line of very distinguished persons who sat on her Chair earlier were all eager to please the occupant of that seat, or if he (yes, I follow my own grammar) was absent, the front benchers on the right hand side in general. He would look for cues or body language messages, as to when he should cut off an opposition member who was becoming dangerously articulate or interesting. True, some opposition members did cross the line, but so did the Treasury bench members who got off scot-free. Viewers could easily see the marks of annoyance on the Speaker’s face when anything embarrassing to the government was being aired by the live TV. He would simply turn off the mike. I was dismayed many times to see MP Fazlul Azim, an independent, being given only two minutes for eight amendments brought to the House by him, with the entire Opposition being absent, and with no dearth of time. In the British Parliament the Speaker cannot bring a “question” to “closure”, until all the sides of the issue have been satisfactorily discussed. The only exception is when there is deliberate time-killing or filibustering to delay the passage of a bill.
Unexpectedly, our present Speaker has asked some Ministers to cut short their winding speeches which tend to have an 80% sycophancy content. She has also used quite polite language when some opposition ladies were raising irrelevant issues in unparliamentarily language and/or Feni dialect, which she probably understands better than I do. She keeps her head cool and does not show her emotions. But I fear she still is not as free as I would have liked. She summarily cuts off the mike of Opposition members after giving them only one minute to speak. In their eagerness to create an impression within those few seconds, the Opposition members resort to antics they might have avoided if given sufficient time to express themselves more naturally.
My ideal Speaker would be totally neutral. He may lose a few friends, but would not gain any enemies. If he does not have secret aspirations and proves that by revoking his party affiliation permanently, he will make a fine uncontroversial speaker for life, like a British one, and all parties might agree to give him a safe seat, not to be contested. I hope Dr Chaudhury will try and succeed.
Source: Bd news24
