It’s so far back in time you might find it hard to recall the last session when the Indian Parliament functioned effectively and credibly. For decades, we have grown accustomed to disruption instead of debate and discussion. Opponents behave like enemies rather than legislative rivals.
The Opposition is convinced the government is not interested in hearing its voice and opinion. It prefers to quash or ignore it.
On the other hand, the government believes its opponents only want to posture and play to the gallery. They want to disturb and disrupt. In the process, India’s democracy is in danger of losing an efficacious assembly that hears and reflects concerns of importance and all the views associated with them. That would be disastrous for our democracy.
Today, I would like to suggest three measures that could, at least substantially, remedy the distrust on both sides. They work very effectively in the House of Commons. There’s absolutely no reason why the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha will not benefit by adopting them.
The first is Prime Minister’s Question Time. It’s time dedicated for the Prime Minister (PM) of the day to be questioned by the leader of the Opposition (LoP) and other MPs. It makes the former accountable, as he needs to be. It gives the latter an opportunity to ventilate their concerns and their criticisms, as they should. It also provides a fascinating window into politics for the rest of the country.
In Britain PMQ, as it’s called, is fixed for half an hour at 12 noon on Wednesdays. The LoP gets to ask at least six questions and the leader of the third-largest party one or, possibly, two more. The rest of the questions are for MPs, both from the treasury benches and the Opposition.
The BBC often broadcasts PMQs live. On some days, the LoP scores, on others the PM holds his own. But on all occasions, the focus is on the questions and the answers and the accountability they provide. And MPs know they have a decent opportunity to raise their constituency’s concerns directly with the man who matters. This half hour serves multiple purposes and seems to suit all sides.
The second practice we should adopt is to devote one day each week to a parliamentary agenda set by the Opposition. The government may be more reluctant to accept this but it needs to be persuaded to do so. After all, under our first-past-the-post system the majority of the country has voted for the Opposition and not the ruling party or alliance. So, if once a week they set the agenda, that’s only logical and fair.
Again, this would ensure the Opposition has a stake in the effective and proper functioning of both Houses. At the moment, they see greater benefit in disrupting them.
The third measure we should adopt from Britain is to do with the Speaker, who presides over our Lok Sabha. No doubt before he’s elected he belongs to a particular party. But once chosen he should break that relationship. The Speaker not only needs to be seen to be independent and not affiliated but people should have convincing reasons to believe he actually is. Only then will the Opposition accept he’s neutral, fair and not partisan.
Let me go one step further. If a sitting Speaker seeks re-election he should be unopposed. Contestation can lead to one-sided performance.
In the House of Commons the Speaker often admonishes the PM, loudly, curtly and even, at times, harshly. Our Speaker should feel he can do the same if the need arises. But that will only happen if he’s recognizably independent and confident of his position.
Now, you have another week to watch the functioning of Parliament and thus judge if my suggestions make sense. For my part I believe they do.
But I would also concede that we need popular pressure to ensure politicians of all hues accept them.
Karan Thapar is the author of Devil’s Advocate: The Untold Story.The views expressed are personal
