Irrespective of the side which forms the government at the centre, it will be a coalition. And there will be a sizeable opposition. This might just pull back our parliament from the brink of decay!
In a parliamentary democracy, the institution of parliament stands for deliberation and accountability. A government riding high on brute majority is interested in neither. Consistently undermined and ignored, the institutions start to lose their essence and eventually, their relevance. And that is done deliberately. Take over of institutions and their decimation by elected majorities is how democracy becomes the justification for killing democracy from within. Consistently over several decades, and particularly in the last decade, that has been the story of Indian parliament. But a new script may be in the offing now!
Brute majorities and parliaments
Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty
We have been sold a narrative that if there is no brute majority in parliament, no reform can happen, all development work will either stop or get delayed because the opposition will disrupt and derail any good work being done by the government. The opposition is the visible demon in the story, which must be contained at all cost. But there is an invisible demon in this narrative as well. And that is the institution of parliament itself. Why? Because it is governed by procedures. Procedures act as check on abuse of power. Procedures bring regularity, predictability and reduce arbitrariness. Procedures bind the majorities to act, not as per their whims, but as per the rules. And what is the point of having a brute majority if you have to play by the rules?
Procedures empower both the government to move a bill in parliament and the opposition to demand that the Bill be sent to a parliament committee. Therefore, the easiest ways to undermine these procedures and rules are either to decry them – ‘unnecessary procedures (slang: red tape) slow down the progress of work’ – or to make them redundant – ‘the government anyway has majority and can get every Bill passed eventually, so, why bother with the procedures’.
When repeated ad nauseum the narrative is normalised. And therefore, the promise of brute majorities is not sold on the fact that they will work with the institutions or strengthen them in any way, but that they will work despite the institutions and tame them. And for any majority, the parliament, is the most crucial institution which needs taming and defanging. Because it is open and under the public glare, it can be claimed as much by the government as by the opposition as by the independents and it requires a commitment to procedures.
Therefore, under a brute majority the work of dismantling the institution of parliament starts early on. The infamous 42nd Amendment of the constitution passed by parliament during emergency in 1976 amended Article 100 and did away with the requirement of quorum in the House. This amendment was later undone by the 44th Amendment passed by parliament under the Janta Party government. As more power is consolidated, the work of dismantling parliament quickens pace.
Earlier this year, ahead of the last parliament session of the outgoing government, I shared a thread of ‘wrongs’ committed by the government against the parliament which included leaving the post of deputy speaker vacant, fewer session of parliament, less deliberation and scrutiny of bills, etc. Towards the end of that session, several civil society organisations, including my civic engagement initiative Maadhyam released a chargesheet against the outgoing government in which we charged the government with undermining the parliament on eight counts and provided evidence. These are the facts of the story of gradual decline of Indian parliament.
It must be remembered that during the pandemic when several democracies world over adapted and enabled their parliaments to meet and debate virtually, the Indian parliament remained shut. Despite the aggressive push for Digital India, the government was least bothered to spend either time or energy in bringing reforms to enable virtual parliament proceedings (reforms is therefore a function of intention, not opposition!) but thousands of crores were spent on constructing a new parliament building. This is a testament that the façade is what needs to be maintained, even celebrated, as the institution is being hollowed out from within. This is how a living institution is converted into a tomb of decay.
Coalitions and parliaments
A coalition also needs to command a majority in parliament to stay in power, but it is a tender majority. A coalition government faces pressures both within the coalition and in parliament in the form of a formidable opposition. This also emboldens the people. Then the government must tread with caution, it must avoid hasty and rash decisions which can no longer be forced down people’s throats. It cannot package unpopular decisions as a manifestation of the ‘popular mandate’, but must prove the legitimacy of its decisions. And this is when governments exhibit a new-found respect for parliament and its procedures. If it can convince people that a policy decision was taken after thorough deliberation within the coalition partners, after taking opposition on board in parliament, after following due process and after proper consultations and scrutiny, then it can expect greater acceptability and compliance with those decisions.
This is the power of rules and procedures in a democracy. As long as there is faith in the fairness and impartiality of the procedures, and in their regular and unbiased enforcement, they command respect and help build legitimacy. When governments stop considering themselves as above the rules and start submitting themselves to the rule of law, institutions revive. They rediscover their role and importance in a democracy. Then it is not the Parliament which is tamed, but it is the parliament which keeps the government tamed, as it must be in a democracy. The chain of accountability – government is answerable to Parliament and each Member of Parliament is answerable to people – rebuilds and reconnects.
We deserve a thriving parliament
Emerging from the yoke of a brute majority, it is now hoped that we will have a vibrant and thriving Parliament, in more ways than one.
Since 2014, we haven’t had an official Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha because of BJP’s insistence on following a rule with no legal validity. So, majorities can make up rules or revive defunct rules when it suits them, but they won’t follow a mandatory constitutional rule if its inconvenient to them. Since 2019, we haven’t had a Deputy Speaker in Lok Sabha, conventionally a nominee of the opposition, despite the Constitution mandating it in Article 93. Since 2014, we have had lesser and lesser number of bills being sent to Parliament Committees for detailed deliberation and scrutiny, despite opposition demanding for more bills to be sent to Committees. This trend might reverse now. More importantly, since 2019, most Committees were dominated by BJP MPs because of their sheer number in both Houses. Now the Committees might see a more balanced representation of all parties and many more Committees being chaired by MPs from parties other than the single largest party. This could significantly improve the quality of scrutiny of bills and could pave way for greater citizen and stakeholder engagement by Committees.
If reports are to be believed, one of the smaller coalition partners may end up getting the post of Speaker as part of the negotiations. Not having the Speaker from the largest party in the coalition would not just be an insurance for the smaller parties, it could bring a modicum of impartiality and fairness in the functioning of the Speaker. Unfortunately, the incumbents of this crucial post in the recent past have reduced this constitutional office to a mere political appointment. Hopefully the trend of the Speaker being beholden to the party in power and not to the Constitution will end now. Coalitions also make space for more diverse voices in Parliament to be heard. In last 10 years, BJP MPs were allotted the lion’s share of time during a debate simply because they were more in number. In comparison, MPs from smaller parties would struggle to confine their speeches within few minutes. Now, smaller parties, single MP parties and independents could also get more airtime and thus people who voted for them, would find their representatives’ voices ringing in parliament more often.
A note of caution
None of this could turn out as expected though. Political parties with a taste of brute majority, used to bulldozing their way through, with complete disregard for rules and procedures, may not take kindly to suddenly have fetters on their powers. The opposition is still vulnerable to reduction in size through poaching and misuse of agencies like CBI and ED. Therefore, abundant caution and alacrity is required, particularly by the people, to prevent the reversing of democratisation. People must continue to exert pressure on their MPs asking them to keep the heat on the government. People must continue to be vigilant and speak up whenever parliament is being undermined. This balanced electoral mandate was just the beginning, the real work begins now. We, the people of India, must continue to demand and strive for the parliament we deserve.
Maansi Verma is a lawyer, public police researcher and Founder of Maadhyam – a civic engagement initiative bringing Parliament and policy making closer to people.
