With regards to investigating the issue of selection, a total of 24,442 parliamentary questions (including verbal with supplementary questions), 1979 short discussion of public interest issues (Rule 71), 488
53Those techniques include: Half-an hour discussion, Calling Attention, Resolution motion, Discussion for short duration, Adjournment Motion and No-confidence Motion (please visit:
calling for attention seeking on public interest (Rule 71 A) and 119 resolution motion (Rule 138) were analysed (discussed in Chapter 4). By providing a brief introduction of the frequency of legislators’ intervention, the rest of the section demonstrates the frequency and statistical patterns of issue selection by gender.
Data gathered under these four legislative activities suggested that both men and women raised both categories of issues, i.e., general and women issues. Concerning the parliamentary question sessions, women raised 13 percent (a total of 3,494) of the total number of questions addressed to both PM and executives, and the number is proportionate to the number of seats in parliament occupied by women (19%) (see Table 5.1). Similarly, men legislators raised 87 percent (a total of 22,212) of the total number of questions, which were again appropriate as men hold 81 percent of the total seats in parliament (see Table 5.1). Concerning the legislators’ participation on women issues, the data showed that women issues have received less attention in the parliamentary question in comparison to general issues. For example, only 2 percent of the total parliamentary questions directly referred to women’s concerns (see Graph 5.1). Graph 5.1 depicts legislator’s selection of issues (divided into two categories i.e. general and women issues) as part of their participation in parliamentary question sessions, based on simple frequency calculation of issues raised.
Similar features were seen while investigating the frequency of issue selection during legislators’ participation in national debates, under the Rule 71 (Short Statement on Public Interest Issues), Rule 71 A (Calling for Attention on Public Interest Issues) and Rule 138 (Resolution Motion on Public Interest Issues). The data generated from these three legislative interventions showed that only 5 percent of the total interventions (under the three activities) were dedicated for issues that directly affect women’s lives, in comparison to general issues (95 percent of the total issues, see Graph 5.2). Graph 5.2 depicts legislators’ selection of issues (divided into two categories, i.e., general and women issues) as part of their participation in national debates based on simple frequency calculation of issues raised. More specifically, only 3.5 percent of interventions (82 times out of 1,976) under Rule 71; 4.14 percent (17 times out of 488) under Rule 71 (A); and 15 percent (18 out of 119) under Rule 138, referred particularly to women’s issues (see Tables 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4).
Source: Researcher’s own calculation Source: Researcher’s own calculation
Such an analysis suggests that women issues received little attention during these exchanges compared to legislators’ concentration on general issues. The data also highlighted that discussion on women issues were even absent in some of the session. For example, legislators had zero interventions on women issues under the activity of calling for Attention on Public Interest (Rule 71 A) during sessions 7th, 12th, 14th, 18th and 19th (for evidence please see the figure-presented in the Appendix-5.1).
As it is discussed in Chapter 4, the purpose of four legislative instruments is to offer legislators the opportunity to raise concerns for immediate intervention, or exchange their opinions about certain policy options. The data shows that legislators preferred to bring general issues during their intervention under these four activities, in general. Those general issues primarily included matters related to seeking policy benefits, asking for explanations of policy failure/implementation, requesting clarification of administrative lapses, demanding remedial actions, seeking benefits for specific groups and specific areas, seeking policy reversal/modification. Most of those problems are associated with the area legislators belong to or represent. While talking about the service for the constituency, they repeatedly reported their contribution at their constituency in building roads, dams, schools, and colleges.
Representation of the interests of the people of the constituency is a critical function of legislators in parliament. The data suggested that general concerns and issues received almost all the attention of legislators as part of their act of representation. This is partly because of the legislators’ survival
Graph 5.2: Distribution of Issues under National debates (Rule 71 A, Rule 71 and Rule 131)
95% 5%
Issues Raised by Legislators
Generel Issues Women Issues Graph 5.1: Distribution of Issues under
Parliamentary Questions
2%
98%
Issues raised by Legislators
women issues generel issues
depends on how effectively they perform their function of representation to the people (Jahan and Amundsen, 2012). While talking with legislators, it was also evident in the discussion that they put more emphasis on building up their constituency or building a support system at the local level by bringing development resources from the centre to the local areas. Every legislator receives a fixed amount at the beginning of their term, which they can invest for the development work in their respective constituencies. As per the interview information, most of the local demands were concerned with local development, improvement of infrastructure, establishment of schools and colleges, and other specific local goods and related services. Similar confirmation and justification came from women legislators:
We had to work for the people of the constituency. Majority requests from people are related to schools, colleges, jobs related issues. I need to make them happy by listening to their applications. As a legislator, we get money from the government for the developmental purpose of our constituency. I use that allocation by establishing schools, colleges, roads, and dams (LWE201505, 2015).
Notwithstanding such pressures, women issues received less attention from legislators. The frequency, at which women issues are raised (under the four legislative activities), suggested that it is the women who brought up most of the women issues. When it comes to representing women and their concerns, women legislators brought a higher proportion of women related questions to the table than their male colleagues in comparison to the total number of questions and the total number of women issues they raised in the parliament (see Table 5.1). The data in table 5.1 suggested that women were hypothetically expected to raise only 80 women related questions (with regards to the total number of issues and total number of women issues raised), whereas they have raised 332, which is higher than the expected value. In contrast, men legislators raised only 260 women related questions, which is lower than the expected numbers of question (511) compared to the total number of questions they raised (see Table 5.1) in parliament. Thus, women raise more questions referring to women’s issues than men, and this difference is statistically significant (see the chi square statistics in Table 5.1).
Table 5.1: Number of Questions raised by the Legislators during 2009-2013
Gender Women's Concerns and Issues General Issues Totals
Total issues by Women 332 (80.47*) 3162 (3413.53*) 3494
Total Issues by Men 260 (511.53*) 21952 (21700.47*) 22212
Total 592 25114 25706 (Grand Total)
The Chi-square statistics is X² (1)54 =931.43 and is statistically significant at p< .01
Source: Researcher’s own table. * it refers expected value.
With regards to their participation in national debate, 66 out of 82 total women issues under the Rule 71; 12 out of 17 under the Rule 71 (A); and 18 out of 18 under the Rule 131; were raised by women legislators (see Tables 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4). Women raised more issues than they were expected in comparison to the total number of issues and women issues raised in the parliament. For example, women legislators were expected to raise 25 women’s issues under the Rule 71, whereas they have raised 66 (see Table 5.2). A similar feature was also evident under the Rule 71A and Rule 138, where women were expected to raise three and six women issues respectively, whereas in reality women have raised 12 and 18 women issues (see Table 5.5 and 5.6). Thus, women legislators raised more women issues in relation to the total number of issues and women’s issues raised by the legislators.
Source: Researcher's own calculation. * it refers expected value
Table 5.3: Numbers of Interventions by Legislators on Calling for Attention Seeking on Public Interest (Rule 71 A) during 2009-2013
Gender Women 's Concerns and Issues General Issues Totals
Female 12 (3.41) 86 (95.59) 98
Male 5 (13.59) 385 (376.41) 390
Totals 17 471 488 (Grand Total)
The Chi-square statistics is X² (1)56=27.9954 and is statistically significant at p< .01
Source: Researcher's own calculation. * it refers expected value.
Source: Researcher's own calculation. * it refers expected value.
55 Degrees of Freedom. 56 Degrees of Freedom. 57 Degrees of Freedom
Table 5.2: Numbers of Interventions by Legislators on Short Discussion of Public Interest Issues (Rule 71) during 2009-2013.
Gender Women's Concerns and Issues General Issues Totals
Issues raised by Women 66 (25.52*) 550 (590.48*) 616
Issues raised by Men 16 (55.48*) 1347 (1306.52*) 1363
Total 82 1897 1979 (Grand Total)
The Chi-square statistics is X² (1)55 =97.2243 and is statistically significant at p< .01
Table 5.4: Numbers of Interventions by Legislators on Resolution Motions on Public Interest during 2009-2013
Gender Women’s Concerns and Issues General Issues Totals
Female 18 (6.81*) 27 (38.19*) 45
Male 0 (11.19*) 74 (62.81*) 74
Total 18 101 119 (Grand Total)
On the other hand, men legislators addressed a very small portion of women issues. For example, men posed only 1.18 percent58 women related questions during the entire parliamentary session (Table 5.1). Similarly, they have paid little attention to women issues while participating in national debate. Men raised only one quarter of women related issues under Rule 71A and Rule 71 (see Tables 5.2, 5.3), and no intervention was recorded for women under the Resolution Motion Rule 138 (see Table 5.4). In relation to the total number of issues (in both categories of general and women issues) and total number of women issues raised under these three legislative activities, men were expected to bring a greater number of women issues than they were found to do under the Rule 71 and Rule 71A. They were expected to raise 55 under Rule 71, 13 under Rule 71A and 11 under Rule 138 (see expected values for issues raised by men in the Tables 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4). However, these numbers were not reached. Thus, women raise more motions referring to women’s issues than men in the national debate. This difference is statistically significant at p < .01 (presented in Tables 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4) as because women remain vocal when it comes to bringing women’s issues to the table, however, men underperform in this context.
In summary, the findings in this section suggested that women issues usually do not receive much attention in the legislative interventions and legislators (regardless of the gender) preferred to raise general issues. However, when it comes to representing women, it is the women legislators who were mostly seen bringing women issues either by asking questions or raising concerns in the form of national debate. First the frequency analysis shows women legislators are more inclined to represent women compared to their male colleagues. Later, the inferential statistics of the frequency confirmed such variation in representation of women issues, which is indeed statistically significant. In other way, the findings suggested that raising issues relevant for women significantly depends on legislators’ gender. Such analysis confirms first analytical assumption of the study that women in Bangladesh parliament have showed a greater concern to issues that have direct effect on women than their male colleagues, in general. This is not to suggest that women MPs are the only ones to talk about women issues, as men were also seen raising women issues while women legislators also raised general issues. Such findings also partially shed light on the second analytical expectation that men legislators likewise represent women issues. However, they do so less frequently than the expected value. The next section
extends the discussion to examine what kind of women issues men and women preferred to address in parliament.