The four Ds of Democracy are debate, discuss, deliberate and decide. Edit them out, and all you get is an alphabet soup of demagogy sans credibility. The survival of a vibrant democracy depends on the integrity of its three important pillars the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. If any of them show signs of degeneration, it suggests a deep rot within the edifice built with the mandate of the people.
Ironically, when India is about to celebrate its 75 years of Independence as an elected democracy, all the three pillars are under severe strain. The threat is not from outside. The Legislature is expected to legislate. It isn’t, going by the week’s parliamentary shenanigans. The Executive is legally bound to execute decisions and laws passed by the Legislature. Instead, it is revelling in the absence of legislative scrutiny. The Judiciary is expected to assert its audit. It is doing less and less of it. Over the past decades, the basic principle of checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution has become just a sentence in one of the many chapters, nibbled on by the silverfish of ennui and disrespect.
Even after three weeks, both houses of Parliament resemble fish markets, raucous with rambunctious rhetoric, invading the Well of the House, tearing up papers and waving posters even as the granite fist of the government pushes through bills without discussions. All the principal actors are keen to be heard more outside Parliament than inside. They rush to engage with each other on their usual hunting grounds — TV studios, social media and press conferences. But the forum where they have been sent to speak in the voice of the people, by the people, has turned into bedlam. Rarely do over 70 per cent of MPs get a single chance to speak on a subject of their choice during their full five-year term. The conduct of all current MPs is nothing short of the betrayal of their mandate. Yet, the BJP and the Opposition led by the Congress take the high moral ground, claiming that although they want Parliament to function smoothly, the other is preventing them from doing so. It is, perhaps, for the first time in seven years that the entire Opposition barring a couple of regional parties have rallied against the government. They are insisting on a structured discussion on Pegasus spyware, farmers’ agitation, inflation and other issues.
Such repeated disruptions of Parliament are posing a serious threat to the existence of the Institution, which is expected to work for the people. During a session, the government is expected to get its business approved after proper scrutiny and discussion in the House. It has the power to bring in new legislation. But, it is also duty bound to respect the sentiments of the Opposition and let it have its say. However, in the past four decades, Parliament has become a battlefield of egos where confrontation has replaced consensus and reconciliation. As the ruling party at the Centre became more assertive and aggressive under a strong leader, the Opposition has retaliated with equal vehemence to demolish the leader than offering an alternate narrative. In the absence of an informal communication network which was the norm for years, the bridge between the opposing sides is one too far. In fact, the rise of an individual over an institution has contributed to the marginalisation of the legislature.
It was during Indira Gandhi’s second coming in the 1970s when the distance between the twin poles of democracy grew apart to such an extent that the imposition of the Emergency and the suppression of the parliamentary system became corollary transgressions. The Executive took over all powers while the Judiciary became seriously compromised. The absence of internal democracy in both the ruling party and the Opposition led to an ugly war for individual supremacy and dominance. History has an atavistic way of playing cruel jokes on idealism, by perverting its original passion into a burlesque of ambitions.
Whenever the Opposition raises issues like corruption, atrocities against the weaker sections, communalism, inflation and the like, the ruling party smells a rat and circles their wagons around the Supreme Leader. This Pavlovian response to protect the Big Chief is preventing Parliament from holding peaceful sessions. Over the years, both Houses have been disrupted frequently by the Opposition with the sole objective of demolishing the credibility of the Prime Minister, whether it is Indira or Manmohan Singh, or of a powerful personality like Sonia Gandhi. The political establishment has convinced itself that it is not the business concluded in the House, but such parliamentary katzenjammer that gets them attention and votes. For such ideologically neutral politicians, Parliament is not a place for competing for better ideas but a belvedere for Clash of Egos.
The declining number of sittings and business hours indicate that the Legislature is being reduced to just another rubber stamp for giving approval for minimal and essential legislation. The actual working hours and sitting days of successive Lok Sabhas have been declining rapidly. It appears that Narendra Modi’s rise as a national leader has not gone down well with the Opposition. During his first term in the 16th Lok Sabha from June 2014 to February 2019, the House worked for only 1,615 hours which is 40 per cent less than the average 2,689 hours in all previous terms. The 16th Lok Sabha sat for 331 days as against the previous average of 468 days. During Modi’s first term, it lost 16 per cent of scheduled time to disruptions. The Congress is correct in accusing the BJP of disrupting Parliament more often when the saffron dominated the Opposition. During Manmohan Singh’s second term, the Lok Sabha lost 37 per cent of its time to disruptions by the BJP and others.
It seems the growing insignificance of Parliament reflects the poor quality of its elected representatives. Since most MPs are elected not on merit but by riding the coattails of their charismatic leader, they don’t have the courage to speak against the leadership and assert their right to participate in the legislative process. The system of backdoor communication with other parties to resolve contentious matters has become moribund since even the ministers barely enjoy the respect of their opponents like in the past. As competitive sycophancy enjoys a premium over credible speech in the House, it pays richer dividends to disrupt and abstain. The erosion of the institution of Parliament encourages the Executive to assume excessive powers to crush other institutions.
With the Media, the self declared fourth pillar of democracy being conspicuous by its discreet invisibility or obvious sycophancy, the Judiciary has taken a tactical retreat on imposing its legitimate checks. If it is the responsibility of the ruling party to ensure proper functioning of Parliament, it is the duty of the Opposition to leave space for a feasible solution. In the absence of any tall and credible leader in the opposition benches, the logjam can always be broken by a magnanimous and powerful leader of the House — the Prime Minister. At the moment, each and every MP is failing the nation and democracy. As Michael Moore wrote: “Democracy is not a spectator sport, it’s a participatory event. If we don’t participate in it, it ceases to be a democracy.” In this Orwellian opera of participatory pandemonium, it would be unwise to perceive over 1 billion silent spectators as acquiescent acolytes. In the sport of democracy, the people have the last word.
Prabhu Chawla
prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com
Follow him on Twitter @PrabhuChawla