End Of Parliament? The Architecture Remains, The Substance Of It Is Dead

Do we need our Parliament anymore? The winter session has been a washout so far. Given the obdurate stand laced with barely concealed hostility on both sides – the government and the opposition – the prospect of any sensible dialogue appears remote. Adjournments have become the norm rather than an exception. For the party with a majority in both Houses it’s a nuisance. For the opposition it’s a forum to settle scores. A serious thought on its relevance is overdue.

The Parliament’s primary function is to make laws. If they can be passed with no discussion and solely on the strength of numbers, then the institution as a deliberative body loses the logic of its existence. It affirms that the executive has overwhelmed the legislature and the opposition has no role left to play. Debates in the Parliament earlier have often been chaotic and raucous – normal in a country with many views – but the total breakdown of civil communication between members on either side of the political divide is a new low.

Earlier, presiding officers of the Houses put effort to conduct normal business despite the noise and aggressive posturing on both sides. They belonged to parties but they were less callous towards the decorum and dignity of their exalted position. They are supposed to be neutral, above loyalty to any party while at their job. That pretense is gone. They are openly partisan, and act as a shield for the government. Questions uncomfortable to the latter are not allowed to be raised. Adjournments have become a convenient tool to evade discussion on serious issues. So Manipur won’t be discussed, nor the Adani matter nor anything else that could embarrass the executive.

Where does that leave the Parliament as the pivot around which democracy revolves and evolves? Nowhere. The idea of it can succeed only when all involved in its running are in agreement that it is an institution that serves a purpose that goes beyond parties and their ideologies and deserves respect. When all stakeholders are keen on undermining it there’s little hope. When the Parliament dies, the democracy dies too.

That should make us reflect on the quality of politics of the present. It’s too adversarial, too ideologically driven and too combative in its tenor and texture. A sober dialogue among political players is nearly impossible. Basic civility is too much of an expectation. Everything about democracy is about numbers and head count. The irony is that people, who are supposedly the most important element in the democracy, can do little after they have voted.

Parliament must be more than a battlefield. But who’s going to tell our parties that?

(By arrangements with Perspective Bytes)