Democracy is a system of government by compromises and accommodation. That is why it’s called a reconciliatory system, where the myriad aspirations of individuals, groups, regions and nations are sought to be reconciled towards a common good. It is hence, a government by discussion and debate, for the method of making choices is by common consent and acceptance. A prime prerequisite for democratic functioning is institutional order and coherence. Unfortunately, what we have been witnessing in the recent past is the collapse of institutional order and coherence. Parliament is where these aspirations are intended to be reconciled, and Parliament has become increasingly dysfunctional.
Politics in India has been becoming increasingly adversarial and anything goes as long as it accrues to the gains of the adversaries. Imagine a game of chess where instead of two sides — black and white — we have one more side, say in red playing on a three-sided board. The objective of each of the players would be to destroy the pawns and powers of the other sides and capture their kings. Now complicate this a bit more. The rules of the game could allow any two sides to combine for a certain length of time against the third or any other combination. This game then gets very complex with colours switching sides at will to make gains. When one colour is extinguished the two left have the space to fight to finish without looking sideways.
The Indian political system might very well have more than three colours. But we can see three major sides in the political spectrum for now. These are the BJP, Congress and the loose alliance of the ex-Janata Dal factions and the regional parties, commonly called the third front. From 1969 to 1989 the BJP (formerly Jana Sangh) and the precursor factions of the Janata Dal used to unite against the Congress.
In 1990 V.P. Singh broke that arrangement by arresting L.K. Advani and halting his rath yatra. Since then the Congress has from time to time combined with the JD factions (minus V.P. Singh) against the BJP. You see the latest manifestation of this in the Mahagatbandhan that convincingly defeated the BJP in Bihar. This win was foretold once the two sides combined to give the BJP political returns in proportion to its popular support. In 2014 the BJP got a lopsided mandate of 283 seats in the Lok Sabha with just 31 per cent of the popular vote.
The political and economic goals of the three major groupings in Indian politics do not differ very much. They are all committed to a raucous democracy and an economic system that gives the political players enough opportunity for collecting rent from crony capitalists. The only differences are about the share of the spoils and individual ambitions. Individual ambitions have always been the cause of abrupt shifts in political positions.
The evolution of our politics into a non-ideological political competition has seen the demise of discussion and debate in Parliament. The evolution of 24X7 TV news channels and their vacuous talk shows aimed at garnering TRPs rather than spreading light has only accelerated this process. Parliament still meets and passes bills and enacts laws, but most of this is done without the debate and discussion they require and we expect. Even the budget is barely discussed. The defence budget has not been discussed for years now. Parliament even functions without quorums most of the time. It has become just a theatre for the political factions to posture and win support in the vast outside.
In this situation the political adversaries pick issues to stall important political statements the ruling party is invested in. The GST Bill is a case in point. The BJP opposed GST as long as it was in the opposition. The BJP states, including Gujarat led by Narendra Modi, were very vociferous in their opposition. To the Congress then, the GST was a symbol of its commitment to the reforms process. Now the sides have switched. The Congress is hoisting the BJP on its own petard. It’s the same situation with the Nuclear Liability Law. The stringency demanded by the then Opposition, including the BJP saw it become unreasonable and impractical that there are no takers for the offer to open nuclear power generation to international power companies.
One has to look beyond sundry ambitions of individual politicians for this dysfunction. There are serious institutional flaws in our parliamentary system too. An American scholar, Dr Jessica Seddon who is presently a Senior Fellow at the IIT Madras Centre for Technology and Policy recently wrote a very perceptive paper “The Limits of
Control in Parliament” in which she examines the institutional arrangements that preclude intelligent and patient discussion of vital matters in either of the houses of Parliament.
Dr Seddon writes: “Parliamentary process is currently stacked against constructive debate. It awards the government substantial control over what comes up for discussion, limits the avenues for alternatives to be articulated and seriously considered, and more or less precludes coalitions that cut across government and opposition lines. In doing so, it also effectively absolves the opposition from any responsibility to highlight specific problems, propose new solutions and build issue-based coalitions around common interests. If delay, disruption and shouts of ‘no’ are the only feasible forms of public dissent, it’s hard to ask people to hold their representatives accountable for more.” Furthermore, the Opposition has little say on the agenda for discussion. Our rules allow for somewhat stronger government control over the agenda than many other parliaments.
Then there is the Anti-Defection Act that seriously limits free discussion by muzzling inner party discussion and expression of dissent. The anti-defection law owes its origins to the reformist zeal of Rajiv Gandhi in his early days as Prime Minister. Whether it was the perception that the soaring popularity was an ephemeral one and that he would be vulnerable to defections engineered by the old guard, or whether it was a genuine desire to reform politics by putting an end to chronic defections and political instability, or more likely a bit of both, Rajiv Gandhi pushed through the law on defections which blights polity even now.
This Act disrespects the essential reality that Members of Parliament or the legislatures are representatives of the people. That they are members of a political party is only incidental. The elected members are intended to represent and protect the interests of the people who elect them and not that of a handful of leaders. It makes them subservient to the whip on the pain of expulsion. This tyranny of the whip has made MPs marionettes that are forced to act according to the wishes of the party leadership. Most party leaderships are now vested within families and clans, and leadership is hereditary or extra-institutional.
So where do we go from here? And where will we discuss and debate just that?
The writer, a policy analyst studying economic and security issues, held senior positions in government and industry. He also specialises in the Chinese economy.
Download the all new Deccan Chronicle app for Android and iOS to stay up-to-date with latest headlines and news stories in politics, entertainment, sports, technology, business and much more from India and around the world.
