That is excellent excuse for much hand-wringing all around. The nightly commentariat has a juicy bone to chew on and demands such as "no-work-no-pay" for the Members of Parliament draw instant approval all around. Arun Jaitley thunders that the people will not forgive those causing disruptions and Shashi Tharoor from across the aisle echoes that, much to the chagrin of his party. But for the honourable members that is so much water off a duck's back.
And why would it not be? Recently, after much data analysis, Praveen Chakravarty concluded that "there is absolutely no relationship between an MP's performance in Parliament and her popularity with voters" ('No one loves Parliament', The Indian Express, August 7, 2015).
But we do not need much analysis of any kind to infer something so self-evident. Even the most educated and alert voter is seldom aware of whether the MP she voted for attends Parliament or the extent of the MP's attendance, leave alone the MP's participation in debates or question hour. It is not far-fetched to presume that an average voter is unlikely to remember even the MP's name unless the worthy is in the news for some reason. I know my current MP from Vadodara because she replaced an illustrious personage who chose to resign this seat and preferred to represent Varanasi, which also elected him. In the year since the by-election, there is no news about our former deputy mayor and the current MP. Do not expect me to remember her six months hence.
Most voters act a) according to party or caste affiliations, or b) out of a desire not to vote for a particular party or caste (negative vote). They seldom know who the candidate they have voted for or care to follow up what the elected representative does for the term in the legislature. They do so for the excellent reason that in our system an individual legislator is of no consequence.
This is nothing new. The roles of Parliament and its debates in decision-making, never substantial, have been downgraded systematically over the years. Even as we wax nostalgic about the era dominated by renowned debaters such as Hiren Mukherjee, H V Kamath, Nath Pai, Piloo Modi among others - incidentally all Opposition stalwarts - we forget how little their impressive speeches contributed ultimately to decision-making. A remark attributed to a leading Parliamentary orator who went on to become a much-loved prime minister. to the effect that the Opposition leaders' job was to deliver fine lectures, eat lunch and enjoy a siesta is most likely apocryphal, but rings true.
India is not the only country with dysfunctional legislatures. Nepal has struggled for over seven years to give itself a democratic constitution. The warring Begums of Bangladesh have made the Jatiyo Sangshad pretty much useless. Former Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa thought of his legislature as nothing more than a rubber stamp. Maithripala Sirisena may have defeated him in the presidential poll, but found Parliament to be a stumbling block, which he promptly dissolved.
Western liberal democracies have also had Parliamentary logjams. Ambassador Richard Verma of the United States recently alluded to the shut-down of the government under President Barack Obama because he has been at loggerheads with the Republican-controlled Congress. That had happened earlier, in the Clinton administration, as well. Filibustering - essentially, talking legislative business to death, considered to be among the finest traditions of the US Senate - is as effective in rendering the legislature useless as rushing to the well and shouting slogans, if a tad bit more decorous.
Yet governments survive and carry on their business, albeit less effectively than they would have liked. That is because national constitutions the world over, despite their claims to checks and balances, invariably favour the executive over the legislative branch of the government. We have ordinances and joint sessions, the Americans have presidential vetoes and executive orders. And the Commons where the British government enjoys the majority is the one that counts, notwithstanding the pomp and circumstance associated with the unwieldy and largely ceremonial Lords.
The Tower of Babel was built after the Biblical Flood as a stairway to heaven, uniting all different people. But the cacophony of their different tongues proved its undoing. Parliaments, the structures the various nations gave themselves to reflect the diverse views of their people, have become modern towers of babel.
Where do we go from here? To paraphrase the Bard, the fault lies not in our systems, but in ourselves. The hostility among political parties is a reflection of deep-rooted animosities between their leaders. Sonia Gandhi and Atal Bihari Vajpayee could tolerate each other, just about, so Parliament was allowed to function. No prizes offered for guessing the relationship between Ms Gandhi and Narendra Modi.
While quitting his Senate seat after 12 years in 2011, the much-respected Democrat Evan Bayh said, "There is too much partisanship and not enough progress - too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving. Even at a time of enormous challenge, the peoples' business is not being done." No truer words were ever spoken.
The writer taught at Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, and helped set up Institute of Rural Management, Anand