The learned debates and decorum of the Constituent Assembly and of the first three Lok Sabhas convinced the world of the success in the adaptation of the western liberal model of democracy to a diverse subcontinent with a largely unlettered population then. The success of the first three Lok Sabhas was due to accommodative politics geared towards building consensus. The presiding officers of both Houses asserted their powers to ensure productive working without any expectation of upward mobility. In contrast, the 15th Lok Sabha has earned the dubious distinction of registering one of the most ignominious performances in the history of India’s parliamentary democracy, leading to growing public contempt for parliament and parliamentarians. It is imperative to assess the functioning of the current parliament and suggest reforms for the next.
The frequent disruptions by the Opposition over escalating corruption, domestic politics and misgovernance have deprived parliament of its time for discussion on legislations and issues — its main function. The blame has to be shared by both the ruling coalition and the Opposition. They left the nation’s fate at the hands of few oligarchs. Data from the PRS Legislative Research states an average of 72 bills was passed annually earlier; it has slumped to 40 bills in the 15th Lok Sabha.
The Lok Sabha, which used to meet for an average of 127 days a year, met for only 73 days in 2011. The 13th session in 2013 was caught up in serious issues of misallocation of coal blocks, corruption in the railway ministry, Indo-China border issues, and the like. But instead of a purposeful debate on the subjects we witnessed unprecedented disruptions, leading to a productive time of merely 95 hours. The Lok Sabha hardly spent any time even on the passage of the budgets of various ministries. The fate of the sexual harassment bill, heavily pushed by a wave of public outrage, was no different, as it was passed in just three minutes without debate. At the end of the session, 116 bills remained pending in Parliament. The sixth session reached a nadir with productive meetings for scarcely 7.3 hours, while time lost to interruptions went up to roughly 125 hours.
An estimate of expenditures for the monthly and daily maintenance of our MPs reveals a total cost of Rs 55 lakh to the public exchequer each day when the parliament is in session, even if we do not include other allowances to MPs in kind. Can the country afford such a colossal waste?
If we wish to see any change in the 16th Lok Sabha, greater involvement and activism would be needed from all stakeholders engaged in shaping public opinion. First and foremost, of course, is the responsibility and accountability of political parties. They must commit in their manifestos to the smooth functioning of parliament. As a matter of fact, we just need the commitment of the 20 top leaders of various parties to ensure purposeful functioning of parliament.
The national parties need to evolve a multi-partisan consensus on at least the major issues of security, foreign affairs and economy. It must be recognised that democracy is not merely about winning elections and engaging in power games. It is also respecting dissent and the willingness to accommodate conflicting views. Lately, there has been few attempts on consensus building. It has become regular practice to crush the opposition views and their protestations through procedural wrangles. Competitive politics has superseded national good. There is a reluctance to give credit to the government for good measures. Similarly, there is reluctance to share credit with other parties who come to a bi- or multi-party consensus. Regional parties have pursued narrow political agenda to perpetuate their own rule for protecting their fiefdoms. It has already caused irreparable harm to the national interest, particularly in foreign and defence policy.
Secondly, the role of media is crucial in shaping parliamentary behaviour. It highlights disruptions. Good speeches rarely get reported, let alone praised. The politician eager to impress his constituency finds unruly conduct as the easy way to attract media attention. They could have an unwritten convention of not publicising the issues involved if there has been a disruption.
Thirdly, the presiding officers of both Houses have to assert themselves for strict compliance of rules to ensure effectual working. They need to emphasise that dissent and difference of opinion will not be a reason for disturbing the House and denial of floor to the members. It is equally important to publicise the details of disruptions with names of MPs and their party affiliations. A database could be created with effective dissemination in various constituencies.
Fourthly, the use of parliamentary committees for enforcement of discipline among MPs and thus ensuring smooth conduct of business is very critical. Ethics committees of both Houses should develop a common code of conduct for MPs. The ethics and business advisory panels should enforce discipline, penalise disruptions and also extend working hours to complete legislative business. There should be a monetary penalty for deviation from expected behaviour, executed in terms of disentitlement to the daily sitting allowance for MPs for days when no substantial work has been transacted in parliament.
A former cabinet minister said in private the business advisory committee is but an exercise to distribute allocation of time to parties for disruptive activities. He added there was a broad understanding about the role of the shouting brigade in the well of the House before adjournment.
Fifthly, there is urgent need for reforms in the Rules of Business. The sanctity of Question Hour needs to be restored. In the 2011 Monsoon session, 520 starred questions in Lok Sabha remained unattended, while only 51 were answered orally. The demand for dropping Question Hour should only be considered if it is introduced by the Leader of the Opposition or ruling party. Adjournment motions should not be viewed as a camouflaged device for a no-confidence motion against the ruling party, but accepted as a means to introduce matters of extraordinary concern.
Lately, members have repeatedly entered the well of the House, causing disruption. A code could be introduced in this regard. Also, the parliamentary privileges need to be codified to enable objective analysis of the conduct of MPs. A big responsibility rests on parties, MPs, media and civil society to create an environment for realising a vision of a functioning parliament.
N. Misra is ex-chairman,TRAI and director, PublicInterest Foundation;
Email: director@publicinterestfoundation.com