KP Sharma
As the government struggles to fulfill some of its election pledges due to the limitations of its power and the need to respect laws governing constitutional bodies, some Members of Parliament (MPs) are calling for a radical shift in approach to deliver the pledges – by invoking the concept of parliamentary supremacy.
Parliamentary sovereignty, also known as parliamentary supremacy or legislative supremacy, asserts that the legislative body holds absolute sovereignty and is supreme over all other government institutions, including executive and judicial bodies.
This concept allows the legislative body or the Parliament to change or repeal any previous legislation, not being bound by written law. It means that the government can introduce an act as a bill to the Parliament for amendment and make changes if it gains majority support.
The suggestion arose at a recent session of National Council following discussions on the government’s failure to fulfil its popular pledge to regularise contract employees due to objections from the Royal Civil Service Commission (RCSC).
During the question-answer session at the Upper House, the Prime Minister said that despite his aspiration to regularise all contract employees, his power is limited, and the RCSC has direct authority over such matters.
However, this is not the first time an elected government has faced objections from the RCSC.
The previous Druk Nyamrup Tshogpa government encountered a similar issue with its pledge to regularise contract employees in the education ministry.
Despite passing a resolution in Parliament and holding numerous discussions with the RCSC, the pledge did not materialise due to the RCSC’s autonomy and regulations, which the elected government must respect.
Addressing the members and the Prime Minister, the National Council member from Pemagatshel, Jamyang Namgyel, argued that since everyone acknowledges the issue of regularising employees on contract, it is important to collaboratively address it.
He said that regularising these employees would benefit the public rather than the government. “If laws are hindering essential public services, it is the Parliament’s responsibility to amend them,” Jamyang Namgyel said.
He suggested that the government should use parliamentary supremacy if changing the act offers broader public benefits. “Although it is not written in the constitution, Parliament is the supreme authority to decide on issues of greater impact,” he said.
Jamyang Namgyel added that since the government is formed based on the majority, the Prime Minister should be able to amend laws in Parliament as he enjoys a majority. “The government can pick up the RCSC Act and bring it for amendment if it has affected the public,” he said.
Responding to the NC member’s suggestions, Prime Minister Tshering Tobgay said that if Parliamentarians believe the act needs amendment, they hold the power to do so but should think broadly.
“On one hand, the constitutional bodies are granted certain power and autonomy, and it would be unwise if the government chose to amend those regulations to its advantage,” Lyonchhen said.
Lyonchhen cautioned that while reviewing the act may benefit the public, it requires careful consideration before making any decision.
“The laws are amended by the Parliament, and if the laws do not benefit the public, it is our responsibility to amend them,” Lyonchhen added.
However, he urged members to consider the present and future before making such decisions, stressing that all agencies, whether constitutional or autonomous, work for the country and citizens’ welfare, not personal interests.
Speaking to Kuensel, a former parliamentarian expressed concern that while employing the concept of parliamentary supremacy might help the ruling government in fulfilling its pledges, such a move could set a dangerous precedent.
He warned that politicising constitutional bodies could have severe long term impacts on democracy.