Funeral of Parliament

Funeral of parliament Jagdeep S. Chhokar Published in GovernanceNow , October 16-31, 2012, pp.41-45 MPs once resolved to preserve and enhance the prestige of parliament. Then all political parties conspired to do precisely the opposite. Is there any hope? Yes, but… “Let me assure you that for 15-20 years now, we have been attending the elongated funeral rites of the parliamentary system.” – Arun Shourie, in The Indian Express, September 18, 2012 Funeral of any parliament is most certainly not a trivial matter. On the contrary, it is extremely serious. And when the matter concerns the parliament of India, the largest democracy in the world, it is not only a matter of life or death for all Indians but also should be a matter of concern to the entire world, given India’s current, expected, and hoped for position in the comity of nations. Under normal circumstances, any observation alluding to the funeral of a parliament should be ignored lest it creates an unnecessary confusion and misunderstanding. One would do that if the person making the allusion is a rabid rabble-rouser and headline hunter, and consider the statement to be scandalous, heretical, even seditious following the currently popular interpretation of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. But when the person making the statement is a Padma Bhushan, Magsaysay award, Dadabhai Naoroji award, Astor award, KS Hegde award, the International Editor of the Year award, and The Freedom to Publish award winner, and one of the International Press Institute’s 50 World Press Freedom Heroes of the past 50 years, it is hard to take it figuratively and ignore it. It calls for a serious consideration. Why would Arun Shourie say so? Let us look at the context. For two sessions of parliament has not done any work, or more appropriately, has not been allowed to do any work. In the same interview to the Express, Shourie also referred to a unanimous resolution passed by both houses of parliament on September 01, 1997, titled “Agenda for India”, in a special session as part of the celebrations “on the occasion of the Golden Jubilee of Independence”. What does that resolution say? The first few paragraphs, relevant to our discussion, are reproduced below. “We, the Members of Lok Sabha, meeting in a specially convened Golden Jubilee Session of both Houses of Parliament, to commemorate the completion of half a century of freedom; Having remembered with gratitude the great sacrifices made and the salutary service rendered by our freedom fighters; Having recalled with deep satisfaction and pride the maturity of our people in vigilantly preserving democracy and safeguarding the unity of the nation and the valour of our soldiers, sailors and airmen, including ex-servicemen, in service to the country; Having reflected upon the state of the nation with the Preamble to the Constitution as the guide; Having then, specifically deliberated upon matters concerning our current political life, state of democracy in the country, our economy, infrastructure, science, technology and human development; Do now solemnly affirm our joint and unanimous commitment to the issues hereinafter mentioned, and we also do solemnly resolve and direct that they be adopted as minimum tasks, constituting our ‘Agenda for India’ on this historic occasion: That meaningful electoral reforms be carried out so that our Parliament and other legislative bodies be balanced and effective instruments of democracy; and further that political life and processes be free of the adverse impact, on governance of undesirable extraneous factors including criminalisation; That continuous and proactive efforts be launched for ensuring greater transparency, probity and accountability in public life so that the freedom, authority and the dignity of Parliament and other legislative bodies are ensured and enhanced; that more especially, all political parties shall undertake all such steps as will attain the objective of ridding our polity of criminalisation or its influence; That the prestige of Parliament be preserved and enhanced, also by conscious and dignified conformity to the entire regime of Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Houses and Directions of the Presiding Officers relating to orderly conduct of business, more especially by – – maintaining the inviolability of the Question Hour. – refraining from transgressing into the official areas of the House, or from any shouting of slogans, and, – invariably desisting from any efforts at interruptions or interference with the address of the President of the Republic.” What does a respectful citizen make of this resolution and subsequent happenings? Prestige of parliament It will take too long to count and enumerate the occasions on which honourable members of parliament have not maintained “the inviolability of the Question Hour”, have transgressed “into the official areas of the House” such as the well of the house, and have resorted to “shouting of slogans”. So much for preserving and enhancing “the prestige of Parliament”! What does a citizen make of the fact that the leader of the opposition in one of the houses announces in the evening that they would not allow parliament to function the next day? Is such premeditated prevention of parliament from functioning not an offence against democracy, and thus against the nation? A simple reading of the above resolution would suggest its gross violation. As for “conscious and dignified conformity to the entire regime of Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Houses and Directions of the Presiding Officers relating to orderly conduct of business”, the image of Somnath Chatterjee urging the honourable members with folded hands to take their seats is etched in the memory of the nation. Should the presiding officers be folding hands and be helpless, and restrict themselves to requesting the members to take their seats, maintain decorum, observe silence, etc., and in extreme cases adjourn the house for two hours, till after lunch, or till the next working day? Or should they implement and enforce the “solemn affirmation” and “joint and unanimous commitment” of the two houses which they have “solemnly resolve(d) and direct(ed)” for adoption as “minimum tasks” on an “historic occasion”? Should the ruling dispensation watch helplessly and try and score brownie points in debates in newspaper columns and TV studios, or should they perform their constitutional duties, and assist and help the presiding officers perform their constitutional duties in the enforcement of unanimous resolutions of the temple of democracy? Should the duties and responsibilities of the presiding officers be limited to honouring the wishes of the current members, their electors, or should they also feel some sense of accountability to either the house itself as an institution, or to the constitution, or to what is best called “We, the people”? Criminalisation, transparency, probity and accountability Now to the two paragraphs that come even before the part about the “prestige of Parliament”. It was “solemnly resolve(ed) and direct(ed)” that one of the “minimum tasks” was to carry out “meaningful electoral reforms… so that our Parliament and other legislative bodies be balanced and effective instruments of democracy; and further that political life and processes be free of the adverse impact, on governance of undesirable extraneous factors including criminalisation” (italics added). This was to be achieved by “continuous and proactive efforts… for ensuring []greater transparency, probity and accountability in public life[] so that the freedom, authority and the dignity of Parliament and other legislative bodies are ensured and enhanced; that more especially, all political parties shall undertake all such steps as will attain the objective of ridding our polity of criminalisation or its influence” (italics added). First, electoral reforms. The resolution was passed in September 1997. In May 1999, the Law Commission of India submitted its 170th report to the then law minister in which it suggested, inter alia, that persons who have been convicted of criminal charges or have criminal cases pending against them be barred from contesting elections. It was reiterated by the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution in 2001, was recommended by the Election Commission first in 1998 and reiterated again in 2004. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission also suggested this in 2008. But parliament that included it as one of the “minimum tasks” has not found time or occasion to do anything about it. On the contrary, when the supreme court ordered in 2002 that all candidates contesting elections should mandatorily disclose criminal cases pending against them, an all-party meeting decided not to allow that and parliament unanimously amended the Representation of People Act to prevent that from happening. That the supreme court struck down that amendment is a separate story. Now about “all political parties (taking) continuous and proactive efforts… for ensuring greater transparency, probity and accountability in public life.” An effort to obtain copies of income tax returns of political parties was opposed tooth and nail by political parties, although they enjoy 100% exemption on their incomes under the Income Tax Act, till the central information commission (CIC) ordered the income tax department to make them public. Now all political parties, except the Communist Party of India, are maintaining in a proceeding in the CIC that they will not give any information about their income. These, presumably, are part “continuous and proactive efforts (being made) for ensuring greater transparency, probity and accountability in public life”. This is the fate of the first part of the “unanimous resolution” on an “historic occasion”. Let us not worry too much about the other parts of the resolution that referred to economically sustainable population growth, universalisation of primary education by 2005, quality of life, gender justice, inculcation of values, creation of a scientific temper, and the like. Passing the resolution While the resolution was passed unanimously, there was an interesting interlude. One of the honourable members made an astute comment, “We have to ensure the compliance of this Resolution as it is approved by all the Members and the nation. I suggest – I do not think that it is inappropriate – that there must be an all-party committee to see that the Resolution and the terms of the Resolution are quickly complied with. We cannot say that the Cabinet will do the whole thing. The Cabinet cannot stop Hon. Members from shouting; the Cabinet cannot stop Hon. Members from rushing to the well of the House.” The speaker countered this: “We have taken a Resolution unto ourselves to perform our responsibilities as political parties.” The honourable member persisted, “I suggest that an all-party committee should be formed to ensure strict compliance of this Resolution” which, the record, sadly says, was followed by “Interruptions”. Funeral and death When one thinks of a funeral, a macabre but essential condition comes to mind. One has to die before a funeral can take place. If Shourie says that “we have been attending the elongated funeral rites of the parliamentary system” and that too “for 15-20 years now”, what does it say about the state of the parliamentary system? Does one dare suggest that the parliament system died about 15-20 years ago? Or started dying 15-20 years ago? Institutions can be set up by executive fiat, legislation, social compact or whatever, but they take time to evolve and really come into their own. In the same vein, they also do not die instantly, they decay over time, and linger with their efficacy becoming less and less till the life and blood disappear and only the skeleton remains. The length of the funeral rites is also determined by the entity that is dying and the process of death. The case of an instant death is different but when the process of death is prolonged, the funeral rites begin when the survivors come to realise that the end is inevitable but will take time in coming. The questions raised above do not have easy answers and it is also extremely discomforting to think about these questions but think, we must! Because if we do not think about them, we will be guilty of letting the disease fester, and thus ensure the dreadful outcome—death. Is resurrection possible? I believe the answer is a clear and emphatic YES, and it is contained in the Resolution itself. The Resolution has “directed” that “all political parties [] shall[] undertake all such steps as will attain the objective of ridding our polity of criminalisation or its influence” and that “greater transparency, probity and accountability in public life” be ensured. An effective way of ensuring this has been provided by the law commission in their report: “On the parity of the above reasoning, it must be said that if democracy and accountability constitute the core of our constitutional system, the same concepts must also apply to and bind the political parties which are integral to parliamentary democracy. It is the political parties that form the government, man the Parliament and run the governance of the country. It is therefore, necessary to introduce internal democracy, financial transparency and accountability in the working of the political parties. A political party which does not respect democratic principles in its internal working cannot be expected to respect those principles in the governance of the country. It cannot be dictatorship internally and democratic in its functioning outside” (Para 3.1.2.1). It is, thus, for the political parties to choose whether they want the “elongated funeral rites” to continue leading to a slow, gradual, painful death of parliament, and consequently, of democracy in the country or they want to save parliament and democracy by becoming demonstrably democratic and financially transparent in their internal functioning. Here’s hoping they make the right choice! Chhokar is a former professor, dean, and director in-charge of IIM, Ahmedabad. He now lives and works in Delhi. Four MPs and an expert on the way parliament functions Manish Tiwari, Congress, MP Arun Shourie used very colourful words but the fundamental point was correct. Because if we are going to have a dysfunctional parliament and a legislature which does not function for more than a month in a year, it means that democracy is a casualty. The responsibility of ensuring that parliament functions properly is of each and every one who has a stake in the system. A combination of constitutional amendments and a level of firmness can rejuvenate the system. First there should be a constitutional amendment which must mandate that parliament functions for at least 120 days in a year. There should also be an amendment to ensure that the state legislatures should function for minimum 90-100 days in a year. Also, anyone who disrupts the functioning of parliament should be suspended for the entire session. Basudeb Acharia, CPM, MP Last session was mainly disrupted by the BJP and its allies on the coal scam. But BJP cannot be held solely responsible. It is also the government’s responsibility to respond to the opposition’s demands. We wanted a debate on that issue but the government was not interested. The government must take action against people who are corrupt and are involved in this scam. What we demand is that all allocations should be cancelled and an inquiry be instituted against those involved. But the government’s unresponsiveness compelled us to take such steps. In the 2011 winter session the government agreed to constitute a JPC but later they denied it. The entire session was disrupted. Shivanand Tiwari, JD-U, MP Parliament sits for, say, 100 days in a year and hardly 20-30 percent times it is disrupted. It is not a big thing. If we study the parliamentarian system around the world, such disruptions are very common. Parliamentarians hit each other, disrupt the proceedings… We need to understand that it is a difficult situation for the opposition parties which feel helpless. They feel that the government can use its majority and can decide on issues of national importance. And that is the reason they disrupt the proceedings. Mohan Singh, Samajwadi Party, MP It is a wrong notion that no work takes place in parliament. A lot of work has happened in the last two sessions. MPs work through parliament committees and they submit their reports in the house. But, yes, I agree a lot of disruption has happened recentl,y especially during the question hour, which is wrong. The announcement by a leader of opposition that they will not let parliament function the next day is wrong. But if there is an issue on which a debate is required and the speaker does not let you speak or the government is not answering then it is our right to speak against it. Because these are two different cases. As MPs, it becomes our responsibility to ensure that the system functions properly. At least the question hour should not be disturbed because that is the only time you can get answer from the government. Devika Malik, PRS Legislative Research There has not been much legislative activity in parliament this year. As many as 102 bills are currently pending with parliament. This backlog includes bills like the national food security bill, land acquisition and rehabilitation bill and some key financial sector bills. The 15th Lok Sabha has so far witnessed two sessions, winter 2010 and monsoon 2012, when no legislative or for that matter any parliamentary work was transacted. This raises uncomfortable questions about the way our parliamentary democracy has been functioning. Further, it makes people question whether it is worthwhile engaging with the political and legislative processes. ——————————————— Monsoon session was a washout The monsoon session of parliament, from August 8 to September 07, saw little business. Several hours were lost due to interruptions on the issues of black money and violence in Mumbai in the first week of the session. The functioning of parliament was stalled on the rest of the days over the demand for the prime minister’s resignation over the allocation of coal blocks. Lok Sabha worked for 20% of the scheduled hours and Rajya Sabha for 27%. Thirty bills were to be passed, but only four could be passed. Sixteen bills were to be introduced, only six could be. Budget session was not so bad, though During the budget session (March 12 to May 22, 2012), only 14% of the time was spent on legislation in Lok Sabha and 16% in Rajya Sabha. Seventeen legislative Bills were introduced and 12 were passed. Several hours were lost due to interruptions on the issues of non-availability of bags for crop storage, Telangana, Aircel-Maxis deal, Bofors and Maoism. Lok Sabha worked for 89% of the scheduled hours and Rajya Sabha for 94%. In those days, MPs worked hard n Lok Sabha met for an average of 127 days in the 1950s and Rajya Sabha for 93 days. This has decreased to 73 days for both houses in 2011. n However, it must be noted that departmentally related standing committees were instituted in 1993. Since then, parliament refers many bills/ issues to these committees for detailed analysis. This work happens outside the scheduled sittings of parliament. n The All India Conference of Presiding Officers, Chief Ministers, Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, Leaders and Whips of Parties held in 2001 had called for immediate steps to ensure that parliament meet for a minimum of 110 days every year. It had recommended that this change be brought in through a constitutional amendment if necessary. Fewer bills pass these days n The first Lok Sabha passed an average of 72 bills each year. This has decreased to 40 bills a year in the 15th Lok Sabha. n Parliament passed 118 bills in 1976: the highest number for a single year. n The lowest number of bills was passed in 2004: only 18. Source: PRS Legislative Research —————————————————————–