পাতা:বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্র (দ্বিতীয় খণ্ড).pdf/১৯০

উইকিসংকলন থেকে
এই পাতাটির মুদ্রণ সংশোধন করা হয়েছে, কিন্তু বৈধকরণ করা হয়নি।



বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্রঃ দ্বিতীয় খণ্ড
163

on the powers of the Governor General and gave wider authority of Provincial governments. It contained an elaborate statement on the Directive Principles of State Policy and carried some provisions designed to bring the legal code of the country into conformity with the laws of Islam. But the originality of this Constitution remained confined to matters of secondary importance. It had nothing new to offer in the nature of constitutional fundamentals. Even its language was much the same as that of the 'adapted Act'. It left the existing parliamentary institutions undisturbed.

 To give a clear picture of what is meant by the Parliamentary or Cabinet system, its chief characteristics are enumerated below:

 (1) The Head of State is largely a ceremonial figure-although he authenticates the actions of the executive-the advice of the Ministers is binding upon him. His discretion, if any, is extremely circumscribed and limited.

 (2) The Executive comprises a group of Ministers who act in Cabinet as a unit. (This presupposes two things, First there is collective responsibility and secondly one man in the team plays a predominant role and acts as a captain-this is the Prime Minister).

 (3) The Ministers are members of the Legislature.

 (4) The Ministers are members of the majority party (in cases of a coalition of the parties combining to form a majority).

 (5) Ministers hold office only if they retain the confidence of the Assembly

 (6) The Minister is personally responsible for the portfolio under his charge and is constantly answerable to the Assembly for its proper functioning.

 It will be clear that the system of government operating in Pakistan until October 1958 followed this pattern. From even a cursory glance at events particularly from 1953 onwards, it would also be quite clear that this pattern was not successfully worked. The Constitution Commission also came to the same conclusion.

Causes of failure

 The Constitution Commission examined the question of the failure of Parliamentary Government in considerable detail. It issued a questionnaire and conducted a large number of interviews. The views expressed before the Commission with regard to the nature and causes of failure of the parliamentary form of Government were summed up by them as follows:

 "(1) Lack of proper elections and defects in the late Constitution.

 "(2) Undue interference by the Head of State with the Ministries and political parties, and by the Central Government with the functioning of the government in the Provinces.