Mohan Guruswamy - The Winter Session of our Democracy
The much delayed
Winter Session of Parliament has commenced. To me it looks all but over bar the
shouting. There is much that must and will not be discussed. Rafale. The
proposed FRDI Bill. GST implementation. The social and economic cost of
demonetization. Rural distress. Adivasi unrest. Events in Nepal. China’s
FTA with Maldives. These issues will typically left to be discussed on TV and
perhaps settled on the streets. Parliament is no longer the place where
substantial matters of public interest are discussed or settled.
With Parliament now
largely dysfunctional, governance standards are falling precipitously. The
education and healthcare systems are in shambles. Local government has all but
collapsed. Even as the cost of government has been climbing to account for
almost 8% of GDP. We are well on the way to becoming a democracy without
discussion. The blight has been a long time in the making and Parliament has
become a place more for theatre than thoughtful consideration of the nations
many problems. Our democracy seems in its winter session?
Democracy is a system
of government by compromises and accommodation. That is why it’s called a
reconciliatory system, where the myriad aspirations of individuals, groups,
regions and nations are sought to be reconciled towards a common good. It is
hence a government by discussion and debate, for the method of making choices
is by common consent and acceptance. A prime prerequisite for democratic
functioning is institutional order and coherence. Unfortunately what we have
been witnessing in the recent past is the collapse of institutional order and
coherence. Parliament is where these aspirations are intended to be reconciled,
but our Parliament has become increasingly dysfunctional.
Politics in India has
been becoming increasingly adversarial and anything goes as long as it accrues
to the gains of the adversaries. Imagine a game of chess where instead of two
sides – black and white – we have one more side say in red playing on a three-sided
board. The objective of each of the players would be to destroy the pawns and
powers of the other sides and capture their kings. Now complicate this a bit
more. The rules of the game could allow any two sides to combine for a certain
length of time against the third or any other combination. This game then gets
very complex with colors switching sides at will to make gains. When one color
is extinguished the two left have the space to fight to finish without looking
sideways.
The Indian political system
might very well have more than three colors. But we can see three major sides
in the political spectrum for now. These are the BJP, Congress and the loose
alliance of the ex-Janata Dal factions and the regional parties, commonly
called the third front. Now we have a fourth adjunct also.
The evolution of our
politics into a non-ideological political competition has seen the demise of
discussion and debate in Parliament. The evolution of 24X7 TV news channels and
their vacuous talk shows aimed at garnering TRP’s rather than spreading light
has only accelerated this process. Parliament still meets and passes bills and
enacts laws, but most of this is done without the debate and discussion they
require and we expect. Even the budget is barely discussed. The defence budget
has not even merited a half seriously discussion for years now. Parliament
functions without quorums most of the time and now by convention quorums are
not called. It has become just a theatre for the political factions to posture
and win support in the vast outside.
One has to look beyond
sundry ambitions of individual politicians for this dysfunction. There are
serious institutional flaws in our parliamentary system too. The office of the
Speaker of the Lok Sabha is modeled after the English Speaker, who by
convention disaffiliates from the party and takes strictly non-partisan
attitude when managing the House of Commons. But in India, with its rather
lesser regard for convention, the Speaker continues to be a party hack and
works closely with the government that chose him or her to further the party’s
political agenda. It is little wonder then that the Speaker, despite the show
of deference and frequent reference by the MP’s, actually commands little
authority to control the house. On the other hand opposition members often feel
stonewalled because of the Speaker’s political affiliations.
This is perhaps why
the Lok Sabha ever so often witnesses so much disorder and willful
disobedience. This convention of having a Speaker from within could be
re-examined and we might find ourselves better served by having Parliament
presided over by an eminent and commonly trusted individual, perhaps like a
retired Chief Justice. It might bring a more enlightened view of right and
wrong to the office. And more importantly endow the office of Speaker with
authority also, instead of just power.
Then there is the
Anti-Defection Act that seriously limits free discussion by muzzling inner
party discussion and expression of dissent. This Act disrespects the essential
reality that Members of Parliament or the legislatures are representatives of
the people. That they are members of a political party is only incidental. The
elected members are intended to represent and protect the interests of the
people who elect them and not of a handful of selected leaders. This tyranny of
the whip on the pain of expulsion has made MP’s marionettes, forced to
act according to the wishes of the party leadership. Most party leaderships are
now vested within families and clans, and where the leadership is hereditary or
extra-institutional.
So where do we go from
here? And where will we discuss and debate just that?