Kalyani Shankar
Democracy demands executive decisions be subjected to Parliament scrutiny; not possible now because of frequent Parliament adjournments
Has the Indian Parliament lost its relevance? Has the Opposition failed to perform its duties of holding the government accountable? Has the government been stubborn and not reaching out to the Opposition? The answer to all these questions is a grand ‘yes' as of now. There is confrontation and no compromise from all sides with the result there is no solution to the present standoff.
To preserve India as a democratic country, Parliament needs to function more actively in framing bills, scrutiny, and holdingsessions. But sadly, more of disruption than discussion and debate on issues about publicimportance is witnessed. Shorter Parliamentary sessions and leniency in the scrutiny of the Bills have diminished Parliament's efficiency.
The current Monsoon session is nearly a washout as neither debate happened nor bills were discussed and passed. Prime Minister Narendra Modi was critical of the Opposition last week for not allowing Parliament to function. At a BJP Parliamentary party meeting, Modi called the Opposition's behaviour “an insult” to Parliament, the Constitution, democracy, and the public. This is because the government could not push through much of the business. The Opposition demanded a debate on the Pegasus snooping, farmers' issues, and price rise. Though the government claimed it was ready to discuss any case, they could not agree on the time and day. It is not for the first time that no business has been transacted for weeks. The BJP, which had played the role of Opposition for a much longer time than any other national party, knows this better as they did all these when they were in Opposition.
Democracy demands that executive decisions be subjected to Parliament scrutiny. However, this process is absent now as Parliament gets adjourned many times in a day. Politics makes lawmakers fail in their duty to discuss and debate bills. They are called lawmakers but they are not serious about finding out flaws in legislation. Noisy scenes, fistfights, and tearing of papers by the Opposition have become a common feature in both houses. The government, too, wants to get the bills passed amidst din and noise.
In fact, we see almost the same headlines at the close of every Parliament session in the past two decades. People are getting disenchanted with the MPs for their non-performance. Some new Members who entered Parliament with the hope of becoming good parliamentarians are disappointed. Some could not even make their maiden speeches.
What are the functions and duties of an elected Member? There are four essential functions: Budget scrutiny, protecting the interests of the constituents, function as a watchdog over the government, and above all, making laws.
Does the parliament need more time? Both Houses sit for an average of 67 days annually. Compare this to the first, second, and third Lok Sabha (1952- 1967), when they sat for an average of 120 days annually. The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution recommended that Lok Sabha should have at least 120 sittings in a year. In comparison, Rajya Sabha should have 100 sittings. Parliament could work for only 34 days since the pandemic hit the country in March last year.
Traditionally, parliamentary committees function on a non-party basis. Of late, members, who hail from both Houses, have started political posturing. Even they gradually have a decreasing role. There have been several recent instances of confrontation within standing committees.
Since 1952, the rules required MPs not to interrupt speeches of others, maintain silence, and not obstruct proceedings during debates. Newer forms of protest led to the updating of these rules in 1989. Now members should not shout slogans, display placards, tear away documents in protest, play cassettes, or tape recorders in the House. In practice, they disobey all these rules.
The primary point is that members from both sides should aim to perform as good parliamentarians. Disruptions cannot be the goal. Elected MPs should discuss people's problems as their chosen representatives.
There have been many suggestions that a concept of no work no pay should be adopted for members. But this would affect only members who depend on their salary. There is also a suggestion to embrace the shadow cabinet model like in the UK. It is for the political parties to ensure responsible behaviour of their members, whether in the opposition or the ruling party. Dialogue is the only way to resolve issues. Wasting the taxpayer's money is no answer.
(The writer is a senior journalist. The views expressed are personal.)
