The dysjunction in functioning between the two Houses of Parliament has been a political reality for a quarter of a century now. But never before has the difference derailed the people’s mandate as it is doing now
The Winter Session of Parliament ended with the customary lament over the dysfunctionality of Parliament. Both the Houses faced many disruptions over intractable political issues as a result of which, the Narendra Modi Government could not push through much of the legislative work it had placed on the agenda. The helplessness of the Government once again raised the question as to whether an obstinate Opposition, which is determined to obstruct Parliament, can virtually undo the mandate of 2014, by disrupting the legislative plans of a duly elected Government.
Though generally, statements by the Government and the opposition parties, on who was responsible for the singular failure of the country’s apex legislative body to function with some modicum of efficiency and seriousness, become part of the blame-game that goes on after a session, there appeared to more than a grain of truth in the Parliamentary Affairs Minister Venkaiah Naidu’s argument about what went wrong this time. He accused the Congress of coming up with “manufactured” excuses to disrupt proceedings in the two Houses on a day-to-day basis. The Congress’s disruptive techniques resulted in nearly 50 per cent of the Rajya Sabha’s time being lost to disruptions and adjournments.
The Bharatiya Janata Party is in a hopeless minority in the upper House and the Congress, which has close to 70 members in the House has been using its numbers to stall the legislative agenda of the ruling BJP. The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Mr Hamid Ansari, has been voicing his concern over the poor output of the upper House in recent times. After the Winter Session, he said the Rajya Sabha seemed to be “singularly unproductive” in regard to legislative work during the Winter Session
But, even more worrying is the virtual washout of Question Hour in the upper House. PRS legislative Research, which does a fine job of tracking Parliament, has reported that the Question Hour worked for just 2.4 hours in the entire session in this House which meant it functioned for just 14 per cent of its allotted time. Nothing symbolises the failure of the parliamentary process more than the collapse of Question Hour. This hour holds the key to accountability and is central to Parliament carrying out its oversight responsibilities.
Over the last 60 years, it is the most effective hour for MPs who wish to keep the Government on its toes. It enables them to question and virtually cross-examine ministers, so much so that the ministers spend hours in understanding issues and preparing their answers. It is for this reason that the Question Hour is the most dreaded hour for ministers. Therefore, when the Opposition raises issues and disrupts Question Hour, the happiest members of the House are the Union Ministers.
The disruptors also do violence to the concept of accountability because MPs, specially those in the Opposition benches, lose the right to question the Government and demand answers. The biggest loser from the disruption of Question Hour is, therefore, the Opposition. It is, therefore, tragic to see the Opposition throw away such an important parliamentary weapon which enables it to keep the Government on track.
Another factor that needs to be taken note of is the rising cost of Parliament. Over the last six decades, there has been a phenomenal rise in the cost of Parliament. It rose from Rs36,000 a day in the 1950s to over Rs1.23 crore per day in 2004. In recent years, it was close to two crore rupees per day or Rs29,000 per minute. These figures show a huge escalation in costs and, therefore, it is only natural for the people to expect Parliament to work. If the people do not get value for money, the efficacy of the parliamentary system is certain to be called into question.
If a duly elected Government is not allowed to legislate and bring in laws to fulfill its electoral promises, the entire democratic process becomes dysfunctional. Democracy is all about plurality and space for different points of view. Over the years, India’s social diversity has metamorphosed into political diversity and resulted in the emergence of a plethora of political parties representing a wide range of interests from religion to region to caste.
Over the last quarter of a century, even political parties that came under the broad Mandal umbrella have splintered into parties representing specific castes and sub-castes. Similarly, parties representing regional aspirations have splintered or given way to newer formations. The best example is the emergence of the Telugu Desam Party in 1982 as a party representing Telugu pride and making inroads into Congress bastions all over undivided Andhra Pradesh. Thereafter, the Telangana Rashtra Samithi came on the scene to slice away this vote-bank and to carve out a separate constituency to represent the aspirations of Telangana.
The shavings and sub-shavings of the erstwhile Janata Party of yore pop up in different States representing different aspirations. The people will begin to see the plurality in our politics as a hindrance to governance. This could once again strengthen the argument for one-party rule or pave the way for anarchy. During the Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi eras, when India was largely under one-party rule and the Congress not only held the reins of the federal Government, but also of a majority of the States, one often worried about the tyranny of the majority.
This tyranny, unfortunately, led to some of the most draconian constitutional amendments including one which abolished the need for quorum for the two Houses of Parliament and the State legislatures to transact business and to make laws. After the defeat of the Rajiv Gandhi Government in 1989, no Government has been able to muster a clear majority in the Rajya Sabha.
While many coalitions have come to power since then either through a clear mandate for a pre-lok Sabha poll arrangement or through post-poll negotiations, every Government has had to cope with an adverse situation in the Rajya Sabha. This is so because most of the seats in the upper House are filled via biennial elections in which MlAs are the electors and the party elected to govern at the federal level does not enjoy majorities in that many State Assemblies in order to gain a majority in this House.
This vicious dysjunction between the complexion of the two Houses is a political reality for a quarter of a century, but never before has this problem resulted in derailing the people’s mandate. We must now worry about the tyranny of the minority!