Home arrow Archives arrow Open Forum arrow Open Forum 2012 arrow Role of Parliament: MIRROR IMAGE OF SOCIETY, by Dr. Saraswathi, 11 Jan, 2012
 
Home
News and Features
INFA Digest
Parliament Spotlight
Dossiers
Publications
Journalism Awards
Archives
RSS
 
 
 
 
 
 
Role of Parliament: MIRROR IMAGE OF SOCIETY, by Dr. Saraswathi, 11 Jan, 2012 Print E-mail

Open Forum

New Delhi, 11 January 2012

Role of Parliament

MIRROR IMAGE OF SOCIETY

By Dr.S.Saraswathi

(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)

 

The Indian Parliament has become subject to severe criticism in recent weeks and years. Frequent disturbances by its members causing disruption of proceedings and heated exchanges between them forcing adjournments for several hours and even days at a stretch, have become a rule rather than an exception. Even essential Bills have not been moved; many are passed without debate and several hours of Parliament are lost without any transaction.

 

The atmosphere in Parliament, directly watched on television is remembered not for some outstanding speeches, which do take place, but for frequent unruly scenes and crowding of the well of either two Houses by members. In fact, the reputation of Parliament has declined so drastically in the opinion of some critics, that the demand for the service rule of “no work, no pay” being adopted for members is worth a consideration.   

 

Let us remember that Indian Parliament is a creation of the Constitution and not a growth over centuries as in Britain. It has prescribed role and functions written into the Constitution. In the course of six decades since its framing, one can perceive a number of changes in the overall performance of Parliament that reflect changes in the political climate in the country. Parliament is a mirror of the society and a replica of the political culture prevailing in the country. What happens in Parliament is the audio-visual expression of the thoughts and moods prevailing outside it.

 

Political experience since independence helps people to become increasingly  of  public affairs, governance, administration, political parties, other political organs and institutions, elections, etc., and as a result their expectations from parliamentarians inside and outside change, along with their assessment of the performance of Parliament and its members.

 

Parliament members are not mere political functionaries having a fixed set of political responsibilities in policy and law making, but have to bear a wider social responsibility towards the people of the nation. The health of the polity depends on how well this obligation is discharged by the members of Parliament.  This is linked with the caliber of members and the standing of the parties.

 

While the institution of Parliament has come into existence mainly as a supreme law-making body, in the course of history, it has accumulated many more functions in all democracies, including India. Thus, in assessing its role, it is crucial to take into account its multifarious functions and its overall impact. For, by activism within Parliament and taking a negative role also, it has been possible for Parliament to stall what it considers as anti-people policy. 

 

Direct verbal and non-verbal confrontation in Parliament is partly a result of an absence of prior discussions among parties or an attempt to accommodate the other’s point of view. A certain consensus among different parties is necessary for the smooth functioning of any Government. A Parliament consisting of members subscribing to totally antagonistic views prevailing in the society can hardly play a constructive role. It will promote the vicious number game and the politics of majority.

 

A major function of Parliament is the control of the Executive.  The legislature is said to be the watchdog of the government, and the forum before which the executive shall answer for its actions. It is in discharging this role, that Parliament is facing difficulties. Former Prime Minister, Vajpayee, had many times referred to this role of Parliament, and even lamented the “failure of democracy”.

 

Various mechanisms such as budget discussions, cut motions, question hour, adjournment motions, calling attention, no-confidence motions, and raising discussions on various subjects are available to Parliament to control the executive. Every member has a right to use these instruments according to parliamentary procedure.

 

A point in case is the Public Accounts Committee, which examines the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and is headed by a member of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. It is one of the main instrumentalities of Parliament to hold the executive accountable for the expenditure incurred by the Government. And, in recent times it has become very active in the context of exposure of several scams. 

 

Additionally, the quality of debates depends on the quality of members and their capacity to deliberate on issues.  The quality of members rests on the choice of political parties fielding candidates.  Winning an election does not depend on a candidate’s ability to be a good parliamentarian, that is, possessing knowledge, ability, and sensitivity to understand and debate issues with conviction. Rather, it requires the infamous “three M’s” – money, muscle power, and mafia – according to many analysts.  Criminal background of some candidates and even elected members is an open secret tarnishing the image of political career itself in India. As a result, there are ideal parliamentarians who cannot win in any territorial constituency, and there are incompetent MPs whose seats are safe.

 

Thus, in the first place, one may draw a conclusion that there are only a few members, who are competent parliamentarians, the rest being “yes men/women” for their parties. Many of the complex issues that come before Parliament require sound knowledge of the subject matter and invariably fail to interest the average members. This is one reason for heavy absenteeism in Parliament unless crucial issues with potential to affect the credibility and survival of the government are under discussion.  These “yes members” are in many cases the pillars of their parties providing funds, manpower, and vote banks.      

 

This situation has also public support in the fact that for most people, MPs and MLAs are not law-makers and public servants with tremendous social responsibility, but are possible sources of power and patronage to be cultivated in their own interest. They approach them for getting extra-legal influence or help. Public relations in political dictionary has, in fact, come to signify distribution of favours and these do not come free. Thus, people play a substantial role in encouraging political corruption. However, there are certainly exceptions in this vicious atmosphere.

 

For the members, the MPLAD Scheme (Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme) opens opportunities for extending patronage and increasing their local popularity. The scheme gives scope for the   parliamentarians to develop undue interest in works that properly belong to various departments. No wonder, a group of MPs have recently demanded “absolute freedom” in spending the funds allotted under this scheme.

 

Unlike the MPs of the 1950s and 1960s who were mostly engrossed in parliamentary work, the members in recent decades take extraordinary effort to nurse their constituencies and also groups of supporters to maintain their clout and ensure re-election. Keeping close contact with the constituency is not an unwelcome development provided it is not mixed with undue patron-client relationship. The members have a far greater role to play to ensure India’s parliamentary democracy remains vibrant. ---INFA

 

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

< Previous   Next >
 
   
     
 
 
  Mambo powered by Best-IT