By Shankar Maitra

The Speaker of Parliament has said, “No state function is more important than a session of Parliament. Among all state activities, a session of Parliament receives the highest importance.” The Speaker made this remark on June 23, while responding to a question from the Leader of the Opposition regarding the absence of ministers in Parliament.

Naturally, this statement raises a question: does it mean that other institutions of the state are less important? There is no denying that the fundamental basis of state governance is public representation, accountability, and constitutional balance. From this perspective, Parliament is an extremely important institution of the state.

The Speaker’s recent statement — “State functions are not more important than a session of Parliament” — has created a new debate. On one hand, the statement highlights the dignity of Parliament and the importance of the democratic system; on the other hand, it raises questions about the realities of running a state. Therefore, the issue should not be judged emotionally, but from constitutional and practical perspectives.
In a parliamentary democracy, Parliament is not merely a place for making laws; it is a platform where the voice of the people is expressed. It is also the principal institution responsible for ensuring accountability of the government’s actions.

The Prime Minister, ministers, and policymakers of the government are required to answer before the elected representatives of the people. The legitimacy of the budget, laws, and national policies comes through Parliament.
For this reason, neglecting parliamentary sessions means weakening one of the important pillars of democracy.

The strongest argument in favor of the Speaker’s statement is that the primary responsibility of ministers is not only to run administrative affairs but also to remain accountable to Parliament. The presence of a minister during a parliamentary session is a part of showing respect to the people.

If ministers regularly avoid Parliament and remain engaged in other activities, the effectiveness of Parliament declines. Question hours, discussions, and raising urgent issues are mechanisms through which the problems of citizens reach the process of policymaking.

Another important issue is the balance of state power. In a modern democratic state, the executive branch cannot make all decisions unilaterally. Parliament supervises the executive branch. Therefore, the presence of ministers during parliamentary sessions is not merely a formality; it is part of a constitutional culture.

However, there are arguments against the Speaker’s statement as well. The reason is that running a state is not limited only to parliamentary activities.

There may be many situations when responsibilities outside Parliament become extremely urgent.
For example, natural disasters, national security crises, urgent international discussions, major diplomatic decisions, or unexpected situations may arise. In such cases, the presence and involvement of a minister in those responsibilities may also become essential for the state.

Suppose an important international meeting regarding national security is taking place where the presence of a minister is necessary. Or suppose a major disaster has occurred and immediate decisions are required. In such situations, performing the relevant ministerial responsibilities is also indispensable for the country.

Therefore, saying that all state functions are less important than Parliament does not always match reality.

The key question here is: which institution of the state should receive priority at what time? In a democratic state, no single institution is absolutely supreme; rather, each institution has its own specific role.

Parliament is the centre of legislation and accountability; the government is the centre of administration; and the judiciary is the centre of interpreting laws. A state functions properly when these institutions respect each other’s responsibilities.

If the Speaker’s statement is viewed as a policy warning, then it has significance. It may mean that ministers should not neglect Parliament or consider parliamentary responsibilities as secondary duties.

But if the statement is interpreted to mean that no state responsibility outside Parliament has any importance, then it will naturally create debate.
Democracy does not survive only through elections; it survives through parliamentary practices, respect for institutions, and a sense of responsibility. Being present in Parliament is important, but carrying out urgent state duties is also important.

A balanced approach is therefore necessary.
Ultimately, it can be said that Parliament is like the heart of the state — from which the blood of public opinion and accountability flows throughout the system. But the other organs of the state body cannot stop functioning either.

Therefore, the correct position may be that parliamentary sessions should not be neglected, but necessary state responsibilities should not be underestimated either. The beauty of democracy is that responsibility is greater than power.
Parliament and state functions — both are supposed to be carried out in the interest of the people. The question should not be which one is greater; rather, the question should be how each responsibility can be properly fulfilled according to the situation.

It is often said that Parliament is sovereign — but constitutional experts have differences of opinion regarding this concept.

In the case of the United Kingdom, parliamentary sovereignty is an established principle. It is said there that Parliament is the highest law-making institution; laws passed by Parliament cannot be overturned by courts (traditionally).

However, the situation is different in a country like Bangladesh, which is based on a written Constitution.

In Bangladesh, Parliament is an important and powerful institution, but the Constitution itself is the supreme law. Parliament makes laws within the limits of the Constitution.
If any law conflicts with the fundamental structure of the Constitution or constitutional provisions, the court can review it. There are many examples of such judicial review. Several laws passed by Parliament have been struck down or amended by the higher courts.
From this perspective, it can be said that Parliament is the highest law-making institution representing the people. But Parliament is not above the Constitution.
The source of sovereign power of the state is the people (according to the constitutional concept of Bangladesh), and Parliament is a constitutional institution through which that power is exercised.

Therefore, it can be said that Parliament is a powerful and respected institution, but calling Parliament “absolutely sovereign” is not entirely constitutionally accurate.
At the same time, the idea that state functions are not more important than Parliament is also not completely correct.

The writer is a journalist and columnist, Dhaka.
Email : shankar73maitra@gmail.com