The recent developments in parliament -- the security breach, the varying interpretations on what happened and why; and in its wake, the seemingly intractable adversarial engagement between the treasury benches and the Opposition -- should be seen as a flash point that needs careful consideration. The ruling party and the Opposition have, as much by their method as by the content of their parliamentary discourse, pushed the polarities of constitutional democracy further apart. As concerned citizens, it is necessary to look at the ultimate core of the institution of the modern parliament and the intellectual foundations of parliamentarianism itself.
Several important questions arise: Is the parliament functioning as parliament when over two-thirds of the elected Opposition members stand suspended? And that too merely because they demanded a statement from the government on the floor of the House? Can important bills -- such as the criminal law Samhitas (to replace the IPC, CrPC, and the Evidence Act) that affect all citizens, and the CEC Bill that affects the independence of the Election Commission, and strikes at the heart of our electoral democracy -- be passed with no discussion at all, indeed with no Opposition members in the House? What is the legitimacy of these laws in our parliamentary democracy?
There can be no technical or pragmatic justification for the disheartening course of events, either from the ruling party or the Opposition. They must be held accountable for having reduced parliament to this sorry state of affairs. This begs the question: Are our elected representatives, specifically the Members of Parliament, socially accountable at all? Are they accountable to the electorate, to their constituents, to the citizens, to the Constitution? Do they really represent the public interest?
The blame game between the ruling party and the Opposition, and worse still the unruly conduct of parliamentarians inside and outside the House, have together diminished parliamentary practice. It has undermined the faith of the citizens in representative democracy by calling into question its central institution -- parliament. Citizens are astonished that parliament is not allowed to function, parliamentary debate is disrupted, parliamentarians routinely rush to the well of the House, the government rushes through laws with little or no discussion, that parliamentarians on all sides behave in a manner completely unbecoming of people’s representatives!
Representative parliamentary democracy will only work when we yoke the idea of representative government and civic participation, together. There is no other path -- going beyond the mere casting of votes -- to fostering a shared identity of those who govern and those who are governed. It is a fallacy to assume that democratic conditions automatically maintain themselves. Democracy does often fall on hard times. And it is clear that our parliamentary practice is in decline. It is the responsibility of the ruling party and the presiding officers to ensure that parliament functions, and functions effectively, in the true spirit of discussion, disagreement, and diligence. Parliamentary discourse, and a healthy difference of opinions while respecting each other’s views, works best to stop political power being exercised arbitrarily, by either side of the House.
When the State is engaged in making laws, allocating scarce resources, enforcing contracts, assigning rights to public goods or common property resources, or engaging in development praxis, it still acts through individuals -- the elected representatives. They are expected to represent shared public interest. When have we last felt that our MPs really represent our interests and are not self-serving? The absence of mobilisation of citizens and the low degree of organisation of the public represent conditions under which the political accountability process is unable to exert pressure to ensure that our parliamentarians act in public interest.
Political accountability is important because in a modern democracy, the fundamental political relationship that affects social, economic, and cultural development is that between the citizen and the State. Its relevance resides in a universal and abiding process, by which who constitutes ‘the people’ is the direct outcome of individual citizens fighting to give direction to their lives, and communities mobilising to gain voice, rather than something determined by the State. The idea of social accountability should aspire, in its practice, to pervade all of society. For, after all, society is responsible for generating the values by which it will live -- values that are open to debate and refinement, and in response to socially and politically demanding problems. And our elected representatives and MPs have an important role to play.
The key challenge facing the political class is conflict resolution. Politicians -- from the ruling party and the Opposition -- know from experience, but need to acknowledge, that in the real world, there is no single homogenous group whose views can prevail. Instead, there are diverse and often competing, even conflicting, views in political discourse. Plurality of views is the very essence of parliamentary democracy. The ability and willingness of the ruling party and the Opposition to engage in a dialogue, however difficult, serves to demonstrate a modicum of accountability to partner in public governance, and abjuring power politics will help.
Both sides must acknowledge that parliamentary discourse is purely ideological, dealing only with political practice; and that liberal democracy is the only doctrine that the Constitution gives us. The public would want the political class across parties to agree on some basic principles: first, that there is no better alternative -- but there are many worse ones -- to parliamentary democracy, and that means they must at least learn to listen to each other; and second, that they will conduct themselves in a manner befitting people’s representatives, rather than the disgraceful behaviour on display at present. The Members of Parliament must not forget that the independent Indian republic was the result of a long struggle, and the Constitution a historically self-legitimising revolution. The members of the Constituent Assembly established high standards of parliamentary practice. The political class must resolve the impasse and restore the ethical standards of parliamentary practice. Else, our slide down the slippery slope that we are currently on will be irreversible.
(The writer is Director, School of Social Sciences, Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences)