পাতা:বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্র (দ্বিতীয় খণ্ড).pdf/১১৭

এই পাতাটির মুদ্রণ সংশোধন করা প্রয়োজন।

90 বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্রঃ দ্বিতীয় খন্ড think of giving up his seat, however strongly he may feel against the policy followed by his party. 45. Regarding the proposal of embodying in the constitution, the conventions observed in England, the first thing that has to be pointed out is that conventions are only usages and understandings which, as Lard Bryc observes, "no writer can formulate." Secondly, a convention is not a precedent which is always followed, for, as painted out by Keith" in his "British Cabinet System." "It may be departed from, because it no longer accords with development of the constitution, when a new usage may be created and itself be followed until circumstances alter." That being so, adoption, as statutory provisions, of usages which are liable to change with the circumstances, would create difficulties. In 1932, when there was a coalition government in England, it was agreed by the members of the cabinet that they had the right to speak and vote against a proposal of the majority which became the proposal of the government. This "agreement to differ" was a clear departure from the rule of collective responsibility, but Sir Ivor Jennings regards it as an exception capable of application only where conditions are similar. This agreement was not considered un- constitutional in England. In the late Constitution, Article 37(5) adopted the English convention, of the collective responsibility of the cabinet, as a statutory provision, but not long after the coming into force of this constitution, the members of the central cabinet started making speeches in public over the One Unit question which indicated that they were no longer of one opinion on that important issue. The then Prime Minister supported the One Unit while some of the members of his cabinet made speeches clearly indicating that One Unit should be broken up. This disagreement stands on the same footing as the "agreement to differ" referred to above, but, while in England it did not become unconstitutional because the collective responsibility there was only a convention, here the disagreement in the cabinet, on the question of One Unit, was clearly unconstitutional as it was a breach of a provision of the constitution. This instance indicates how unwise it is to incorporate, in the constitution, usage which spring out of peculiar circumstances and are likely to be changed when the circumstances change. Apart from these difficulties, we fail to See how, by adopting certain known conventions as statutory provisions we would secure stability of government when, as we have said above, we do not have the type of leadership as well as membership of the legislature required to successfully work the parliamentary form. Till the average member of the legislature develops a sense of political responsibility and ceases to put political pressure on the ministry for his own ends, even definite provisions of the constitution are likely to be disregarded. 46. Statutory prohibition of ministerial interference with the day-to-day administration would create difficulties, as circumstances may arise requiring the minister's attention, to be given to an administrative detail. In England, there is no such prohibition, but no minister thinks of interfering in the day-to-day administration unless

  • p_7