Parliamentary system: India
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. Readers will be able to edit existing articles and post new articles directly |
Performance: 1952-2007
From the archives of The Times of India 2007, 2009
Parliamentary system: Good, bad & ugly
Parliament has been an effective check on the executive. But absenteeism and chaotic scenes have hurt its prestige
Rajeev Deshpande
The Times of India May 5, 2007
How Parliament functions depends to a considerable extent on the nature of the mandate of a particular Lok Sabha. This is an obvious, if unavoidable, aspect of Parliament keeping in mind the coalition verdicts that have been the order of the day since 1996 and which cannot be ruled out in the future as well.
In 2004, the NDA was comprehensively ousted from power but proved to be a poor loser, somehow convinced that it had been cheated out of a rightful victory. The numbers on the side of the victors were indisputable butCongress looked just like the first among equals as it returned 145 seats to BJP’s 138.Congress’s alliances clicked while NDA failed.
The 14th Lok Sabha was never peaceful. In its first half, NDA repeatedly played disrupter, attacking UPA and its leaders like PM Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi as well as UPA partners like Lalu Prasad. The introduction of the ministry was marred by slogan-shouting over “tainted” ministers. UPA was equally aggressive, hitting back at BJP for losing the polls.
If the UPA-NDA exchange was a bit like the “we won the game, you won the shame” cries that mark children’s games, it was not surprising. The unsettled equations meant BJP refused to recognize the legitimacy of theCongress-led government. Debate was the casualty. It didn’t help matters that Somnath Chatterjee, as Speaker himself, was spoiling for a fight with members.
The presiding officer matters a lot in such circumstances. P A Sangma’s “arrey baba baith jao” during the 1996-98 United Front government perhaps proved much more effective. With a mix of humour and stern mien, Sangma managed a highly fractious House where rivalries were as sharp as they were unsettled.
This time around, despite some disruptions, the 15th Lok Sabha has been more business-like, the reason possibly lying in the unambiguousCongress victory with 206 seats. BJP, too, has been reconciled to sitting it out on the Opposition benches. Though issues of the day can very well plunge the House into disorder, there has been more debate than in the past even though government business so far has been limited.
While taking a longer look at whether Parliament has proved an effective institution in reflecting people’s aspirations and ensuring accountability of the executive, the complexion of successive Lok Sabhas provides a clue or two. Though Parliament has become much more representative than it was in its upper caste-dominated form in 1952, its culture still appears to be work in progress. Bipartisan respect for norms is yet to fall in place that can ensure a certain sense of continuity. This may also be because of a fractured polity that has seen over 35 parties represented in Parliament. This has made Parliament more diverse, but can at times add to the chaos, particularly when regional issues rise to the fore as they did over Telangana. State rivalries can also get enhanced play as national parties have no option but to cater to such demands.
All this does not mean that Parliament is not effective in acting as check on the executive and a barometer of popular opinion. Parliament was at its best debating the India-US nuclear deal, with discussions adding to public knowledge about the pact and also becoming a useful bargaining chip in the UPA government’s negotiations with the US.
The standing committee system has also delivered good results with in-camera non-partisan discussions often yielding a consensus that party politics will not allow. Standing committees have done good work, delivering well-argued reports on science, health, defence, education, agriculture and finance. They have given an opportunity for the more serious MPs, even though there are increasing number of “conflict of interest” cases involving members who choose a panel related to their business.
There are troubling discipline issues like attendance where the two Houses often wear a depleted look in afternoons. Attention is centred on Zero Hour proceedings and there have been shocking instances of MPs skipping questions in Question Hour. Collapse of Question Hour during last year’s winter session brought out the degree of cynicism that has crept into the parliamentary system.
Here, there is a need to make debates and discussions more inclusive so that more MPs can participate. The expose of MPs in the previous Lok Sabha — accepting money for putting up questions — confirmed the worst about parliamentarians. Asking questions for a consideration or for a particular business interest is no longer an occasional instance. While MPs are protected by rights to privilege, there is a case for more accountability in their dealings as parliamentarians.
