পাতা:বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্র (দ্বিতীয় খণ্ড).pdf/১০৪

77 বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্রঃ দ্বিতীয় খন্ড শিরোনাম সূত্র তারিখ শাসনতান্ত্রিক कॉमन এর রিপোট সরকারী ২৯ এপ্রিল, ১৯৬১ [Report of the Constitution Commission in Excerpts-29th April, 1961.] CHAPTER I CAUSES OF THE FAILURE OF THE PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF GOVERNMENT Was There a Failure? 8. This chapter relates to the first of the terms of reference which assumes that the parliamentary pattern of government has failed in Pakistan. This means that it could not be successfully worked in this country and not, as misunderstood in some of the opinions, as meaning that the system itself was a failure. Institutions do not work of themselves but become what they are made by those who function under them. A large majority of the opinions, accepting the assumption on which this question is based, formulated various causes of the said failure. In some of the opinions, however, the correctness of the assumption was doubted on the ground that as, till the beginning of 1956, the Government of India Act of 1935 as adapted by Pakistan was in force and when a new Constitution was framed, only its transitional provisions were brought into effect, there was no real parliamentary government in Pakistan and that therefore, the question of its failure did not arise. A very small minority (15 in number) asserted that the parliamentary form of government was a success in this country. 9. Neither of the last mentioned two views, we think, can be accepted. The form of government in force, prior to Independence, was not wholly of the parliamentary pattern as the Governors in the provinces had discretionary powers with regard to certain sections of the services and in certain other matters, and the Governor-General at the Centre was all-powerful and not answerable to the Central Legislature. But when the subcontinent was divided into two self governing dominions, the Government of India Act, 1935 with adaptations (which is referred to hereinafter as the Constitution Act), introduced in Pakistan a type of government which was undoubtedly parliamentary. As for the Quaid-i-Azam as Governor-General being also the President of the Constituent Assembly, it is within the personal knowledge of one of us, who as a judge of the Lahore High Couit, was at the time engaged in the work of adoption of laws, that the Quaid assumed the Presidentship of the Assembly only at the request of the Prime Minister. It is said that he held the portfolio of the States, but we have no reason to think that he did so against the wishes of the ministry. If his Cabinet felt the need for his guidance, it was but natural for him to guide them, especially when the circumstances were so very extraordinary. Keith, in his "British Cabinet System", points out that a sovereign is not, by constitutional practice, expected to play the role of a mere formal head of the stale who accepts all proposals automatically, that he is, 011 the other hand, entitled to be kept informed of the course of all important business and has the right of expressing his