Open
Forum
New Delhi, 12 September 2019
Code of Conduct
DISCIPLINING LAW MAKERS
By Dr S.Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)
Vice-President Venkaiah Naidu has been urging
political parties to adopt a Code of Conduct for MPs and MLAs. He called upon
the parties to evolve a consensus on such a code for their members, both inside
and outside the legislature “so that people do not lose faith in political
processes and institutions”.
Obviously, his advice was mainly intended to
stop repeated disruption of the proceedings of the Parliament as in the last
Lok Sabha. He mentioned specifically that the code should stipulate that
members would not run to the well of the House, nor resort to sloganeering and
disruption or any other unruly behaviour such as tearing papers and throwing
them in the House. He asked parties to bar those indulging in such behaviour.
When political parties, who send law makers
of the nation to Parliament as our honourable representatives are to be given
such advice, something must be seriously wrong with the way our democratic institutions
function.
The Vice-President also expressed concern
over the tendency of Opposition parties in some States to boycott legislatures.
In some others, eviction of members for unruly behaviour is reported. Some
legislatures meet only for a very few days -- all pointing to an over-all deterioration
of public political discourse causing distrust in elected bodies among common people.
Will adoption of a Code of Conduct remedy the
situation? Not certainly 100 per cent.
But, strict adherence to the dictates of the code may discipline legislators once
it becomes certain that violations will not be tolerated and will result in end
of political career of the unruly members.
The Committee on Ethics was constituted in both Houses in 1997 to
“oversee the moral and ethical conduct of the members and to examine the cases
referred to it with reference to ethical and other misconduct of members”. The very first report of the committee was
about preparation of a code of conduct for Rajya Sabha members which was
adopted by Rajya Sabha in December 1998 and the details in 2005.
The Committee reminded the members that the
responsibility to maintain public trust was reposed in them and they should
constantly strive to translate the ideals laid down in the preamble of the
Constitution in their functioning. About a dozen directives, mostly in the form
of restraints, are given in this report, some general and others specific.
These include: not to do anything to bring
disrepute to Parliament or affect their credibility; not bring private
financial interests to come in conflict with public interests; not to take
any remuneration or benefit for their
role in the House, for questions, resolutions, voting, etc; not to accept any gifts except something
incidental; not to disclose confidential matters; not to support any cause
about which they have little knowledge; not to misuse their facilities and
amenities; and not to show disrespect to
any religion.
On the positive side, the code enjoins
members to utilise their position to advance the general well-being of the
people; keep private interests subordinated to public interests; keep uppermost
in their minds Fundamental Duties; maintain high standards of morality,
dignity, decency, and values in public life; and promote secular values.
Indeed, it is unbelievable that Rajya Sabha
members have already set such high ethical standards for themselves. Even a
cursory glance at these details may show the gap between the ideals adopted for
our law makers and the reality we face. If it continues, chances are more for
widening of the gap and practically nil for narrowing. The code has been in
force for Rajya Sabha since 2005, but there is no code for members of Lok Sabha
perhaps under the notion of respecting members directly elected by the people
and giving them maximum freedom in their behaviour. In 1964, a code for Union
Ministers was adopted.
Adopting a code of conduct voluntarily is not
a disgrace to anybody. In 1999, at a conference of Chief Justices of India, a
resolution was passed to adopt a code of conduct for judges of the Supreme
Court and High Courts, and a 15-point code labelled “Reinstatement of Values in
Judicial Life” was recommended. Judges
are expected to maintain an air of “aloofness” in their personal and official
lives.
India is not the first country to think of
prescribing a code for elected members to be ashamed of such a necessity. On
the contrary, it is a late comer. Law-making bodies in many countries have
evolved mechanisms to check conflict of interests of members and to encourage
separation of personal and public financial and other activities.
In the UK, following a resolution adopted in
the House of Commons, a code for MPs was prepared in 1995-96. In Canada, there is
a Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner with powers to examine
violations of Conflict of Interests Code. The US has a code since 1968 and
Germany from 1972. A Code of Deontology was adopted in France for members of
the National Assembly and Senate in 2011 and in Belgium for its Chamber and
Senate in 2013. Norway declared Ethical Guidelines in 2013, and Bulgaria framed
Ethical Code of Conduct in 2014, and so also many other countries.
The code in UK sets out the standards of behaviour
expected of MPs as they carry out their work. It also contains rules concerning
additional income, gifts and other personal interests that must be declared by
MPs and published in the Register of MPs’ interests. The Register is maintained
by the Parliamentary Commissioner of Standards. The general principles of
conduct expected include selflessness, integrity, objectivity, openness,
honesty, leadership and role model.
The General Assembly of the UNO adopted a
Resolution in 1996 on a Model International Conduct for Public Officials
including MPs as a tool to guide efforts at fighting corruption. The Council of
Europe in its Resolution on Twenty Guiding Principles for the Fight Against
Corruption in 1997 invited national authorities to apply these principles in their
legislative practice.
Thus, adoption of a code of conduct has been universally
accepted as a normal parliamentary practice. Despite this, the European
Barometer Survey of the European Commission of 2016 reported that majority of
European citizens continued to distrust their representatives in national
parliaments with a level of trust on average at 32 per cent. Rising level of
corruption adversely affecting public accountability and political credibility
lessen the level of trust.
Neither disclosure of conflict of interest
nor demarcation of private and public interests is strong in India. The result
is seen today in unlimited corruption and its unmanageable growth. Power not
always corrupts directly, but very often acts through proxies and middlemen
thus escalating corruption far and wide.
What we need is an enforceable system with
inbuilt mechanism for automatic enforcement of the law and rules against
corrupt practices. Eternal vigilance cannot be left to the convenience of policing
authorities, but should become a way of life. A code of conduct for MPs is
absolutely necessary, but not adequate to cleanse our politics and political
institutions unless it has provisions to enforce compliance.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|