Article 70 and Democracy in Bangladesh

In Bangladesh constitution, Article 70 states: “A person elected as a member of Parliament at an election at which he was nominated as a candidate by a political party shall vacate his seat if he resigns from that party or votes in Parliament against the party.”

We can complain all about our crippled political system and ineffective parliament, but the fact that a single component in our constitution stands as a key obstacle in preventing democracy in Bangladesh. So the fact that the opposition / minority parties are always “walking out” of the parliament should not be received with any shock, since this provision ensures that whatever bill needs to be passed will almost always be in accordance to the ruling party’s preference. And then obviously it should be any surprise when the oppositions take the streets to protest. Lets look at a scenario.

If a ruling party wishes to put forward a bill in the parliament, say to change the name of the country to premier’s name, then it should be automatically taken that this will pass through. Obviously since the ruling party holds the highest number of seats in the cabinet and each one of them according to the provision are forced to vote in favor of what the party leader decides. And irregardless how much the opposition parties whine, the bill will be passed.

What is most amusing however, is why even the opposition parties never raise this issue? Perhaps they would rather have no voice for a period in order to enjoy full control when they are back in power. In 2009, Dr. Mozaffar Ahmad (Economist & Civil rights activist) suggested that a constitution review committee is formed to review this article along with other provisions, if Bangladesh is to move forward towards a transparent and healthy democracy.

So about animals. I can confidently say that

So about animals. I can confidently say that our biggest achievement is to have converted all them threats as domestic pets or objects of special interests in zoos, where we take our dates to be “amused.” And if not there is always that reliable NatGeo dude (usually in a khakis, unshaven for weeks), creeping up in the dark with his camera crew recording tigers making love!

We also continue to wipe out ecosystems for “economic prosperity” and then whine about how we are not doing enough to “conserve” near extinct species. And when we do manage to get some attention, we organize awareness campaigns drawing sponsorships from companies that usually contribute in destroying natural habitats, quite regularly, and drool over the morons from Fox News praising stuff like ‘how selfless contribution from the oil riches is helping to conserve coral reefs.’ Isn’t it funny when biggest names sponsoring World Wildlife Fund projects are usually folks like Chevron, BHP, Shell, BP…and we actually buy the fact they care about our environment?Image

Billionaires’ fortunes hinder fight against poverty

Billionaires’ fortunes hinder fight against poverty

Riches getting richer because of demands of what they offer is there. The new trend is so called the CSR which they actively pursue. Through CSR they ensure branding loyalty of products people who can’t afford don’t actually need. People end up spending their income on things they usually don’t need. So the math is really simple, the riches get richer and the poor poorer. 

The Power of Print Media

Reblogged from screaming parachute:

Click to visit the original post

Headlines in red bold typeface scream at you, instigating you to pick up the paper and read the story. ‘Nishpap shishur e kemon mrittu!’ (Innocent life comes to a tragic end!) – facing such a headline, anybody would want to know what happened, how did the unfortunate child die, at times getting scared worrying about the safety of self and own family, at times getting infuriated at the heinous murderers.

Read more… 1,048 more words