Staff Reporter:
A highly-charged rhetorical battle broke out in Parliament on Monday over the use of the word “moboc-racy”, with the Speaker ultimately ruling that the term was neither unparliamentary nor offensive, and even suggesting that lawmakers were free to use it themselves.
The debate emerged during discussions on the proposed national budget when ruling party reserved-seat MP Bithika Binte Hossain criticized a procession organized by the opposition Jamaat-e-Islami after the budget was unveiled on June 11.
Referring to the rally, she remarked that while some opposition figures had offered comments and sug-gestions on the budget, others had taken to the streets with banners declaring “We do not accept it and will not accept it”.
“That is a mobocracy,” she said.
The remark quickly drew objections from opposition benches.
Jamaat MP Rashedul Islam of Sherpur-1 rose on a point of order, arguing that describing the party’s budget protest as “mobocracy” was inappropriate and requesting that the comment be expunged from the record.
Speaker Hafiz Uddin Ahmed, however, was unmoved.
“Mobocracy is now a widely used term. It is not obscene and I do not consider it unparliamentary,” he ruled. “You may also use the term if you wish.”
The Speaker further explained that while the word could carry a negative political connotation as the opposite of democracy, it was not offensive in itself.
The ruling prompted Opposition Leader Dr Shafiqur Rahman to join the debate.
“The word does not convey a positive meaning,” he argued. “Budget processions have been organised in the past not only by Jamaat but also by BNP and many others. Were all those processions mobocracy as well?”
He maintained that the expression was misplaced and should be removed from the parliamentary record.
Yet the Speaker stood firm, declining a second request to strike out the word.
The exchange left MPs debating not the budget deficit, tax rates or inflation, but the parliamentary fate of a single word.
For a brief moment, the fiercest contest in the House was not over economics or politics, but over whether a protest march was democracy in action—or, as one MP put it, “mobocracy”.
