Parliamentarians must think of a long-term solution for smooth functioning of the House. No-work-no-pay idea is just one possibility
Should the formula of no-work-no-pay be applicable to the Members of ParliamentIJ Minister of State for Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation Mahesh Sharma dropped a bombshell when he said, “Just like no-work-no-pay formula is applied for bureaucrats, the Government is mulling the option of stopping salaries if Parliament transacts no business because of disruption.” However, Union Minister for Urban Development M Venkaiah Naidu immediately contradicted Mr Sharma by stating there is no such plan. Ironically, the BJP had opposed the same suggestion floated by the then ruling Congress after it had ‘wiped out’ an entire Session of Parliament in 2010. Therefore, it is clear that whether it is the ruling party or the Opposition, there is always the problem of who will bell the cat.
The Joint Committee on Salaries and Allowances of Members of Parliament, headed by BJP MP Yogi Adityanath, has proposed a 100 per cent salary hike for all MPs and a 77 per cent hike in the pension of former MPs. In addition, it includes a substantial increase in daily allowances. Clearly, the MPs are keen on getting more perks rather than moving towards no-work-no-pay concept.
It is not for the first time that this idea has been debated in parliamentary circles. Old timers like former Haryana Chief Minister Bansi lal and former Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh Shanta Kumar too pointed out that they had already experimented with this concept. To their horror, they lost the elections soon after.
Vexed by the stalling of business in 2008, former Speaker of lok Sabha Somnath Chatterji had made a strong plea to introduce the no-work-no-pay concept for the MPs. He even called those MPs who ran to the well of the House as cheerleaders. But no party was willing to support this concept.
The 13th All India Whips conference, held in Hyderabad on August 5, said, “In view of the fact that on some occasions disturbances in the House, lead to adjournments without transacting any business, the Conference resolves that the principle of ‘no-work-no-allowance’ should apply to the Members of Parliament and State legislatures.” Therefore the idea has been alive for some time but there are no takers.
This brings us to the present logjam in Parliament. Had this concept been adopted, would the House witness such uproarious scenesIJ Perhaps these unruly scenes would have been avoided only if there been a rule that those who rush to the well of the House, will automatically get suspended. lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan, after reaching the end of her patience, had to suspend 25 Congress MPs.
But the underlying question here is: Even if the Speaker revokes the suspension, will it produce resultsIJ Not likely, as it is too late for the House to transact any business, as Parliament will be closed on August 13, unless it is extended. Also, this strategy has backfired, as it has resulted in further confrontation between the treasury and the Opposition. The suspension has also united the divided Opposition. Fence-sitting opposition parties have decided to stand by the Congress not because they agree with its demands, but because they believe this will set a dangerous precedent and can also be used against them in the future. Therefore, it is time that the parliamentarians think of a long-term solution to allow the House to function smoothly.
The no-work-no-pay idea is one of the solutions. Those who are in favour argue that if it is applicable to every working class citizen of our country, why not for Members of ParliamentIJ Senior Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Sitaram Yechury said, “The principle of equality in the Constitution should be applied here also and there should be ‘no-work-no-pay’ for MPs.”
Moreover, the principle is not just punitive, as it would ensure that only those who productively participate in the proceedings of the House, would be awarded salary and vice-versa. The MPs are elected as People’s representatives to raise their voices in the House. The argument against this concept is that the Opposition fears that this might result in disproportionate punishment for causing disruptions in the House.