Form, not substance

The two Parliament houses have met for only 50 days each in 2008

Nominally, India is a parliamentary democracy. In fact, it has a poorly functioning, bureaucracy-oriented system without proper parliamentary oversight, and little accountability except at election time—all this, when there are manifest failures in governance visible at every level in every sphere. The two houses of Parliament have met for only about 50 days each in 2008, which must be a record low; in more normal times, it used to be well over 100 days. And little real business got done in the few days when Parliament was in session. When it came to legislation, the country was in fact treated to complete farce: On Tuesday, Bills were passed in a rush, one after another after another, without debate and without anyone being able to hear what was going on in the din. This is not the first time.

 

This is also the first year in which there has been no “winter” session of Parliament, because the “monsoon” session that began in July was convened again in October and yet again in December. Left to itself, the government would have continued the same session into February—until the presiding officer put his foot down and insisted on a properly convened “Budget” session (even if there is no regular Budget, only a vote on account). There has in the past been the strange sight of the government announcing that it had no legislative business to conduct; the Lok Sabha has been adjourned and then re-convened, to suit (it would seem) the convenience of a single member; and even the Budget has been passed without proper debate, by simply applying a guillotine. Some ministries have not had their functioning debated in Parliament for years on end, yet they have been regularly given money to spend.

Parliamentarians are quick to invoke their privileges, and they are right to do so. But what about their duties—like maintaining a minimum decorum? The Rajya Sabha is supposed to be a House of Elders; so imagine the scene when members of such a House seek to tear papers from the hands of a minister who is introducing a Bill. Parliamentarians complain that the serious work that goes on in committees is not noted by the public—but this can hardly be corrected when committees meet in camera. Parliamentarians also complain that the press does not report serious debates, but that can hardly be the primary issue when there is no quorum in the House during most debates (ie, 90 per cent of members have not cared to attend), and when those speaking in such debates often leave without waiting to listen to other speakers. Why not raise the quorum to 20 per cent, so that parliamentarians themselves take the House more seriously—and mandate that the House will not sit without a quorum (today the quorum bell is rung only if a member raises the lack of minimum attendance)?

In other words, solutions are possible—the chairman of the Rajya Sabha has shown how it is possible to conduct a disciplined Question Hour. Presiding officers can do more, as can leaders of the different parties. If they do not, the only conclusion possible is that parliamentarians themselves are comfortable with the shell of a system, without the substance that gives it life and meaning.