All of us who have faith in the parliamentary system of democracy agreed with Somnath Chatterjee when he said- “You are all working overtime to finish democracy in this country. It is a matter of great sorrow.” The Lok Sabha witnessed unruly scenes forcing the Speaker of the house to adjourn proceedings. Opposition MPs had gathered near his podium shouting slogans.The Rajya sabha was also adjourned till noon after similar scenes were witnessed inside the House.
The Budget Session of Parliament commenced today. It would be too optimistic to hope that the parliament will get the opportunity of a sensible and in-depth discussion on the budget.There are chances of a repetition of disorder and chaos which happens most often in our parliament these days. For the last few years decisions are made without discussions in the Parliament. It is difficult to believe that once upon a time discussions on the budget, demands of the ministries, Question Time, were important. Who is responsible for this situation? The party in power blames the opposition and when the opposition comes to power, it blames its opposition for doing what it had itself done while in opposition. The fact of the matter is that both sides of the House to are to be blamed equally.
It’s not that we don’t have capable MPs. There are some brilliant parliamentarians in our parliament. The problem is that their talent is not being utilised because of the lack of opportunities for discussions in the House.The quality of debates depends on the manner in which the business of the House is transacted. The moment some important issue is discussed petty politics takes priorty over national concerns. The seriousness of the issues is gone.
During the Nehruvian era there were certain conventions of parliamentary debates which were followed by all. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were not interrupted when they spoke and there was no display of disrespect. Ministers were expected to remain neutral and were not supposed to join the protests and demonstrations by the members of the ruling party. Nobody cares now and that has led to the falling standards of decorum.
Under the Rules the presiding officer has the power to punish the members who disobey his orders or obstruct the business of the House. These days the presiding officer often chooses to be lenient to the members who indulge in objectionable conduct because he doesn’t want to become unpopular with the members. The reason could be that when governments are run by coalitions, no presiding officer can be certain that the House will back a motion of punishment if the member or a group of members happen to be a partner of the coalition or belong to parties supporting the government from outside (the Rules of the House require that a motion of suspension has to be presented to the House immediately after a member or group of members is named by the Chair). Order and decorum can be enforced by the presiding officer only if the members back him.
One more issue is the allocation of time for members participating in the debates. The bulk of the time for debate on any issue is allotted to the party in power, the main Opposition party and other recognised political parties. Parliamentary democracy works on the basis of political parties and it is understandable to allot the main part of the time for debates to political parties in the House. However is it justified to give a Raghuvansh prasad Singh more time than a legal expert like Fali Nariman even when the issues discussed are those relating to law or the Constitution? If experts don’t get enough time it is the House that is deprived of the benefit of their expertise. Rajya Sabha boasts of MPs who are experts in their respective fields but due to their not being affiliated to a political party the time assigned to them is not enough. Who cares? Our political parties are too busy protesting when they are in opposition and pushing their own agenda forward while in power.
from Vishesh :)
from Reema :)
