Dysfunctional Parliament impairing democracy

Saba Naqvi
Senior Journalist

We are in the midst of multiple catastrophes — from Covid-19 to reverse migration to economic mayhem and now a standoff on the border with China. Yet, one of the pillars of our democracy that we showcase to the world, the Indian Parliament, has actually become defunct during this period. We ended the budget session of Parliament abruptly on March 24 after panic over an MP being in contact with a COVID patient, and the monsoon session that usually begins in the second half of July is unlikely to be called on schedule. MPs believe it could be delayed till September, by which time it will be constitutionally necessary for Parliament to convene, as a break cannot exceed six months.

The year of the greatest crises confronted by independent India has, therefore, also been the year of the suspension of Indian Parliament — following whose lead even the state Assemblies stopped meeting. The Executive, principally the Prime Minister, has implemented decisions through the bureaucracy without any parliamentary oversight. This is bad for the health of any democracy. A national crisis is a time when people’s representatives should be engaged in debating policies that impact the millions that elected them, besides offering critiques of dramatic foreign policy and national security developments.

As it is, the suspension of the MPLAD scheme for two years still smarts. It denies each MP the sum of Rs 5 crore every year to spend on their constituencies. With the money being put into the Central pool, Opposition parties see it as undermining the capacity of the MP to serve their constituency during the coronavirus crisis.

On top of that, Parliament seems dysfunctional. The argument that this is the inevitable outcome of the pandemic does not hold true. Countries around the world with healthy democratic traditions have responded with virtual sessions or with limited meetings by groups of elected representatives or a hybrid of both.

India adopted the Westminster model of the United Kingdom. The British parliament has functioned, although Prime Minister Boris Johnson landed in hospital with Covid-19. On April 22, British MPs returned from their Easter break to pass a law that allowed them to hold virtual debates and pave the way for a historic ‘hybrid’ parliamentary session amid the lockdown. This involved a redesign of the parliamentary chamber and the installation of giant video screens, upending, as one commentator put it, 700 years of history.

A maximum of 50 MPs were allowed into the main debating room while up to 120 could video-link through Zoom to quiz ministers and ask questions. The hybrid sessions actually began when Boris Johnson was convalescing and continued till May 20. On June 2, the House of Commons returned to a socially distanced form of physical proceedings. MPs who self-certified that they were unable to return to the House for medical or public health reasons linked to the pandemic were allowed to take part in some proceedings remotely. This system will now continue till September 2.

In India, meanwhile, Opposition MPs have raised the issue of convening Parliament and some have suggested that at the very least, meetings of parliamentary standing committees should be allowed to take place virtually. The response has been that proceedings need to be confidential and, therefore, cannot be online for fear of a security breach.

In an age when international bodies are meeting virtually, as are parliaments, and when the BJP is pushing through an election in Bihar as soon as possible with virtual campaigns, this is a disingenuous position to take. All that the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha have to do is amend the rules to allow virtual standing committee meetings and, eventually, parliamentary attendance through video links.

Citing security concerns is a false flag. For, if the PM can have confidential video-conferences with chief ministers, surely the Indian Parliament can ensure secure platforms for MPs and standing committees? Currently, a few Opposition MPs, who head standing committees, have called for real physical meetings in July. It remains to be seen how many members attend.

Committee meetings take place in rooms, but can Parliament meet? It’s imperative to understand the architecture of the Indian Parliament to answer this. There are the two Houses, the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, that do not have enough space for social distancing in the event of full attendance. But there is also the large Central Hall of Parliament that can accommodate up to a thousand people and can certainly be used for sessions of one or the other House with distancing maintained (the Central Hall has been used for joint sessions of both Houses). The design of our Parliament, therefore, is such that it can function during the pandemic with protocols in place.

Where there is a will, there is a way. But the impulses which have been on display, disregard parliamentary diversity and promote rule of a strong individual and implementation of decisions by unelected bureaucrats. Beyond displaying great inventiveness in procuring the necessary numbers to get members elected in close contests to the Rajya Sabha, the current BJP leadership does not show any particular regard for the institution as such, which necessarily involves respect for the Opposition.

This is different from the fine

parliamentary practice and near reverence for the institution displayed by the BJP’s first Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. His career, in the Jan Sangh and later the BJP, was mostly spent in the Opposition and built on parliamentary speeches and debates. He was respected and liked by those he opposed because he pushed a particular ideology but did not seek to undermine the institutions that upheld Indian democracy.