Backpage

MEMBERS of India’s political class are unlikely to remember the year gone by with any fondness. Castigated widely as self-serving, self-obsessed and venal, politicians, in repeated opinion polls, populate the lowest trust categories. Predictably though, our politicians continue to live in a state of self-denial, vociferously asserting that their current woes are essentially a result of a concerted campaign carried out by those who want to weaken our representative democracy – a reference directed at the Anna Hazare led anti-corruption campaign and an increasingly questioning and unforgiving media. It was thus surprising to hear BJD MP Pinaki Mishra admit, in a moment of rare candour, that the decline in credibility is primarily self-inflicted.

It is not that such was always the state of affairs in Parliament. For better days one does not necessarily have to hark back to the glory era of Nehru and other leaders schooled in a politics of purpose and vision. The Parliament under Rajiv Gandhi (1984-89), despite the furore over Bofors, clocked more than its designated number of hours, often extending the time period to conclude legislative business. Since then, however, parliamentary performance, irrespective of the regime in power, has steadily worsened, with the situation under the current dispensation marking an all-time low. For the first time we have lost entire sessions of Parliament, resulting in key legislation remaining either stalled, or if passed, without meaningful discussion.

Is this only a reflection of a breakdown of political consensus, of no party being in a position to win a majority on its own? The shift to coalition governments involving small parties, often representing particularist interests, has introduced a new bargaining culture wherein special interests trump general good, if only to ensure a legislative majority. A continuing obsession with survival also reduces the likelihood of the regime in power reaching out to the opposition to build bipartisan consensus, even on crucial national issues.

Members of the ruling coalition routinely blame the principal opposition party, the BJP, for the continuing logjam in Parliament, accusing it of not coming to terms with its loss of power in 2004 and thus using every pretext, howsoever unjustified, to stall parliamentary proceedings and show the government up in bad light. The opposition, in turn, blames the ruling benches for being arrogant and high-handed, unwilling to accommodate their concerns, if not ‘welcome’ disruption, since it helps government escape parliamentary scrutiny. Whatever the ‘merits’ on either side, it is difficult to deny the ineptitude of the floor managers of the ruling party in not just failing to reach out to the opposition but even bringing on board its own coalition partners. The fact that the prime minister is so often missing from the House, and when present usually silent, only adds to the impression of a parliamentary drift.

The fact of an energetic and noisy opposition, keen to grill the government, is in itself not unwelcome. What, however, is difficult to comprehend is the complicity of parliamentarians, across party divides, in contributing to the dysfunctionality of the institution. Assuming that our representatives, even if not imbued with a noble purpose, are no more self-serving than the rest of us, surely they should realize that in continuing to behave and act the way they do, they only undermine both themselves and the legitimacy of Parliament.

There is no dearth of suggestions to both clean up the polity and improve the functioning of the House. Given the unrealistic ceiling on electoral expenditures and restrictions over legitimate sources of election funding, both parties and candidates are ‘forced’ into sub-rosa deals in return for favours post election. All this has contributed to an increase of unsavoury elements in the legislature, selected more for their electability than ability. Clearly there is an urgent need to evolve new rules for public funding, as also weed out candidates with criminal records to reduce the role of ‘money and muscle power’.

Equally important is the need to change the rules of functioning in the House – scrapping the system of party whips, except in the case of money bills or motions of no-confidence, enabling members to present their personal views as also vote on policy matters. One should also do away with the system of voice votes and record the decision of members, enabling constituents to track the voting record of their representatives. We must also increase the number of days the Parliament needs to be in session, ensuring sufficient time for deliberation. Reworking the system of incentives and disincentives can, without having to revisit the constitutional architecture, help improve parliamentary functioning and credibility. All this is known; what is in doubt is the desire of our political leadership to rise to the challenge. Little surprise that the popular characterization of the political class continues to hold sway.

Harsh Sethi