When confrontation replaces conversation and disruption derails dialogue, the subsequent situation poses an ominous threat to the very idea of democracy. With political parties engaged in verbal wrestling over building consensus on national issues even in Parliament, people’s faith in democratic institutions is getting eroded day by day. Lawmakers are conspicuous by their presence in breaking the law right inside the House by hurling microphones, tearing up legislative papers, rushing screaming into the well waving banners, and pummelling each other.
Until now, such unacceptable conduct was limited to the state legislatures, which anyway would meet for less than 20 days a year. For the past few years, Parliament has been debilitated by an infection of invective. During the current budget session, both Sabhas have conducted little legislative business, thus revealing their casual commitment to the people. Their 788 members by and large refused to prioritise issues of public importance such as the multimillion rupee bank scams, India’s moribund health care, faulty education and invalid infrastructure. Fighting in the name of ensuring better governance, the ruling party and the Opposition smothered Parliament in the babel of brinkmanship. Estimating a notional loss to the nation of Rs 2.50 lakh per minute from the pandemonium, India would have lost almost over Rs 150 crore in the last budget session. For the cost of paralysing Parliament during the past few years, at least 150 kilometres of new four-lane roads, a domestic airport or 100 district-level hospitals could have been built by now.
More than a symbolic monetary loss, the real victim of democratic dissonance is the culture of sane and superlative governance. During the current session, even vital fiscal legislation was passed without discussion. While the Opposition kept shouting down the Finance Minister, who was going through the motion of reading out the 21 amendments to the Finance Bill and its umpteen clauses, the treasury benches nonchalantly raised their hands in favour.
The Bill contains many radical proposals, such as the methodology of funding political parties. Parliament has surrendered its right to scrutinise the last and final budget of the NDA government. Considering the cavalier manner in which the Finance Bill was moved through, our MPs have treated Budget 2018 like a fait accompli sans accomplishment. In the last Lok Sabha, less than one-third of the time allocated for the budget was actually used, and the rest was wasted in disruptions. The interim Budget for 2014 was adopted without even a discussion.
It is not for the first time that parliamentarians have minimized the role of Parliament in framing laws. For the past few decades, there has been more noise than debate in both Houses. According to PRS, a research-based think tank, the last Lok Sabha was the worst in terms of performance. Its productive time during 2009 stood at 61 per cent (worst in 50 years) as against 87 per cent during 2004-2009 and 91 percent between 1999 and 2004.
The performance of the Upper House was little better at 66 percent. During the tenure of UPA-II from 2009 to 2014, the Lower House passed only 179 Bills of the 328 which were listed for discussion and approval— as against 297 and 248 legislations passed by the previous two Lok Sabhas. Unfortunately, MPs seem to have voluntarily abdicated their privilege to pose questions to the government. More than half the time allocated for Question Hour was lost to disruptions during the five year term of the Lok Sabha 2014. And less than 12 per cent of about 6,500 questions were answered by the ministers concerned.
The erosion of parliamentary debate has been a cause of concern for senior leaders and opinion makers. Former president Pranab Mukherjee had warned of the danger of gagging parliamentary democracy in his last farewell speech to both the Houses of Parliament, saying, “543 persons from the 543 territorial constituencies of this country representing the people in Lok Sabha and 245 persons elected by 29 States and seven Union Territories make laws, scrutinize orders of the executive and enforce accountability to protect the interests of the people. Each of these 788 voices is important. It is unfortunate that the parliamentary time devoted to legislation has been declining. With the heightened complexity of administration, legislation must be preceded by scrutiny and adequate discussion. Scrutiny in committees is no substitute to open discussion on the floor of the House. When the Parliament fails to discharge its law-making role or enacts laws without discussion, I feel it breaches the trust reposed in it by the people of this great country.”
More than betraying the faith of the people, an inactive and infirm parliament relinquishes the cardinal principle of checks and balances which helps a healthy democracy navigate the stormy waters of political partisanship. With the legislature failing to invoke this basic right, governance becomes exposed to the radiation of illogic and whimsy of an overbearing executive. Indira Gandhi could use her unfettered prime ministerial powers to impose the Emergency in 1975 because of a weak legislature that crawled when it was asked to bend. Of the three pillars of democracy, the legislature and the judiciary are considered the two most powerful deterrents against the executive’s misuse of power.
Currently both are losing their clout and credibility. As the judiciary battles its inner demons of ideological and personal affiliations while facing charges of nepotism and favouritism, legislatures are silencing their souls with the cacophony of abusive narrative. Moreover, the time spent by Parliament doing business is reducing drastically by the year. Though it is desirable for state legislatures and Parliament to convene for at least 120 days per annum, the calendar has stopped at around 100 days a year, over the past decade.
Tragically, those who are mandated to provide governance through maximum legislative participation themselves are undermining the vox populi. When the mechanisms of legislative checks are run aground by the machinations of the power-hungry, the executive can easily become a Frankenstein monster ready to eviscerate institutions and watchdogs.