If raising a child takes a village, sustaining a democracy takes the whole nation. And we are failing at that. Collectively and rapidly.
One of the surest signs of a failing democracy is the ill health of its institutions, particularly the institutions designed to check power. Like the Indian Parliament. Whatever may be the purpose of a parliament in our imagination, the Constitution envisages it as a representative, law making, accountability seeking institution. It is struggling to properly do any of these things.
But what and who is stopping Parliament from rising to its constitutional role? Primarily the government, but also, we the people of India.
Government decimates the dignity of Parliament
On the eve of the last Parliament session of the current government, I posted a thread on the platform ‘X’ (formerly Twitter) about the ‘wrongs’ committed by the government during its term. The list of ‘wrongs’ mentioned in this thread are by no means exhaustive but they are glaring enough to make any concerned citizen worry.
At the outset is the matter of the vacant post of deputy speaker in the Lok Sabha. Article 93 of the Constitution, in very clear terms, mandates having a deputy speaker as soon as possible. It’s been more than four years now. It is immaterial for the government to argue that the House can function without a deputy speaker, who is conventionally a nominee of the opposition. What is of absolute concern is the cavalier attitude of the government towards a constitutional mandate. Why? Because it believes that it can get away with it. And we are letting it.
Then comes the very important issue of fewer and shorter Parliament sessions. Nothing can indicate government’s contempt for Parliament more than this. This is because the government has been empowered to decide when to convene a session and for how long. Dr B.R. Ambedkar, while speaking in the Constituent Assembly, expressed confidence that in independent India, there will be no occasion for the executive to shun or show a callous conduct towards the legislature. Unfortunately, he has been proved wrong. A Parliament session is convened not as a matter of answerability towards the legislature but on the basis of calculations of political exigencies. There are crucial state assembly elections, Parliament session can wait. There is Covid, why do we need Parliament to question the government during a pandemic anyway, keep it closed for as long as possible. As I argued elsewhere, a functional Parliament was more crucial than ever during the pandemic.
Shorter and fewer sessions also mean that the time of Parliament is prioritised to focus on the government’s agenda. If there is less time, all other business will be sacrificed so that Bills can be cleared. Any demand for debate from the opposition will be accommodated only if it doesn’t disturb government’s agenda for a particular session. And if the opposition protests because its demands are not being met, the ‘time lost’ due to disruptions is compensated by pushing Bills through without debate. Perhaps, it is the fear of losing time which also prevents government from sending Bills to Parliament Committees for scrutiny, analysis and public consultations. Shorter and fewer sessions also provide a fertile ground to govern by issuing Ordinances, through which parliamentary law-making process is bypassed.
And finally, there is the crucial issue of answering parliament questions. The government’s discomfort with questions is understandable, yet peculiar. It can go to great lengths to avoid answering questions, even getting an opposition MP expelled! It has been resorting to the dubious practice of deleting questions of opposition MPs who are suspended. When it has no option left but to answer, it simply evades or ignores questions, provides misleading or incomplete answers, and when all else fails, says that data isn’t available.
But the biggest disservice that the government has done is making Parliament redundant in people’s imaginations.
People abandon the Parliament
When I posted about the ‘wrongs’ being done by the government, there were many who disagreed. Though disagreement and dissent are fundamental to a democracy, it is important to address several fallacies in their arguments.
One citizen argued that government is being criticised for getting work done. Apparently getting many Bills pushed through Parliament, whether or not proper debate, deliberation and scrutiny happened for each, is a sign of a government which means business. It is not uncommon for even media to declare a Parliament session as ‘productive’ if a large number of Bills are pushed through in a short time. However, Parliament is not a Bill making factory. Number of Bills passed in a session is not a measure of Parliament’s efficiency. Law making by Parliament doesn’t mean rubber stamping every proposal put before it by the government. On the contrary, law making is a deliberately slow process, requiring multiple readings, deeper debates within committees and plenary debates in Parliament. That is what the rules and procedures also provide for.
The idea is for every possible input from as many stakeholders to inform law making. Because law making is a costly process. There is the cost of making a law, and the cost of implementing a law. Not just a monetary cost to the taxpayers, but there can be human, social, environmental costs associated as well. Bad laws can violate rights of people, can lead to protests and unrest in a society. This is why different stakeholders and their representatives must be involved in law making process. This is deliberative democracy in practice. Pushing bills through without any debate, or amid protests, or in absence of different voices, is undemocratic. As I had argued in a previous article for The Wire, passing bills in this manner can be held to be ’illegal’ and unconstitutional. There is just no justification for it.
Another citizen argued that shorter Parliament sessions are not problematic because anyway the opposition uses the sessions to protest on various issues and disrupt. Several citizens questioned the conduct of the opposition. Here, it is important to recall the basics. It is not just the government which has a ‘mandate’ to govern, every Member of Parliament, including from the opposition has the ‘mandate’ to represent their constituents, contribute to law making and keep the government under check. We vote for who we want as our Member of Parliament, we don’t directly vote for who our ministers or prime minister will be. Therefore, the prime minister and her cabinet of ministers are answerable to us through our MPs. And thus, the role of each MP and particularly the opposition becomes crucial. The opposition’s effective and continued participation in Parliament is a litmus test for democracy, because working without opposition is easy, taking the opposition along is not every government’s cup of tea!
Yes, the opposition must also conduct itself honourably, but we forget that opposition wields no power. It cannot compel the government to call a Parliament session, if the government doesn’t want to. It cannot force the government to debate a particular issue, if the government doesn’t want to. The smooth functioning of Parliament, therefore, is more dependent on the benevolence of the government than the disciplined conduct of the opposition. Left with no choice, the opposition protests. And the government gains from it. Therefore, keeping the opposition in protest mode is strategically beneficial for the government. So, while we must question the opposition MPs for not effectively exercising a check on the government, we must question the government more aggressively for abusing its powers. Parliament will perform only as well as our steadfast faith in its place in our democracy. If we abandon it, it will crumble.
Ending the bad dream
In response to the thread, several citizens also expressed despondency, asking whether anything can be done to arrest these worrying trends. Indeed, it is an uphill battle, but it starts with accepting that the state of affairs is alarming. The rot runs deep. It didn’t start during the current regime, but it has certainly accelerated its pace. There are no easy answers on how to remedy the situation, but no solution can be worked out unless citizens start caring about the health of their institutions. The government will only respond to electoral compulsions. It is up to us to make the decimation of Parliament into a political issue that government can’t afford to ignore.
Maansi Verma is a lawyer, public policy researcher, and Founder of Maadhyam – a civic engagement initiative bringing Parliament and policy-making closer to people.