A pricking decline

It is an irony that on one hand, India is busy constructing a lofty edifice for the Parliament and, on the other hand, the very business of the institution is witnessing a decline. Productivity in the Lok Sabha during the monsoon session has been as low as 14 per cent (as of August 8) and 22 per cent in Rajya Sabha. The Lok Sabha has functioned merely for 12 hours and the Rajya Sabha for 18.2 hours. But the worst part is that the decline is not just in quantitative terms but qualitative terms as well. Even if productivity ratio and functioning hours were high, it would be no guarantee for healthy functioning. The other crucial factors include the quality and quantum of time spent in deliberation over particular bills. The present state represents a dismal situation where both opposition and proposition are to be blamed for diluting the power of people by not allowing the primary institution of our representative democracy to function properly. The per-minute disruption in the Parliament costs heavily on the pockets of common citizens — in the present time, they are already devastated by the pandemic. The estimated cost of per-minute disruption in the Parliament was Rs 29,000 in the year 2008, which grew to Rs 2.5 lakh in around 2012. The monetary cost of Parliamentary disruptions is tangible and affects the masses but the real cost is that people are forced to live in lack of proper legislation over the years. In case a bill is passed amid disruption, without due deliberation, the impact is devastating, as evidenced in the case of Central farm laws. The logjam between the farmers and the Central government has left people to lead a life of chaos. Apart from quantitative productivity, two other very crucial matters are a cause of concern for the healthy functioning of the Parliament — reduced role of Parliamentary standing committees and increased promulgation of ordinances over the past few years. Standing committees are an outstanding feature of the Parliament that allow in-depth analysis and expert inputs into any legislation. Comparing the engagement of these committees in legislative business during last three Lok Sabha, it is reported that while during the 14th Lok Sabha the involvement was 60 per cent, it rose to 71 per cent in the 15th Lok Sabha but declined drastically to 25 per cent in the 16th Lok Sabha between 2014-19. If a law is to be devised for a country as diverse and socially sophisticated as India, it cannot take chances on the strength of the foundation of legislation that would come through proper deliberation. It is important to assess the causes that lead to disruptions and find solutions on an urgent basis. In 2001, Parliament itself had identified four causes for parliamentary disruptions. Two of those causes were — the unresponsive attitude of the government and dissatisfaction among the opposition leaders in terms of time and opportunity given to them to put forth their grievances. This brings us to the present situation. The entire crux of parliamentary functioning for defined outcomes hinges upon two crucial factors — how well the opposition comes out with severe criticism and how ably the proposition advances towards building a consensus. The fault lines in the present scenario could be traced somewhere between these two factors. The main opposition leaders are now looking to forward their concerns outside of the Parliament as they are not able to find answers or proper justification for the lack of the same. Such a situation becomes more vulnerable to be misused for political reasons. Ever since the constitution of the Parliament, there has been a well-formulated code of conduct that was improvised according to changes in parliamentary conduct over years. If there is a need to upgrade these rules further and implement the same, nothing explains why it is lacking until now. An institution of such prime importance cannot be allowed to be affected further in the interest of populist actions. The vitality of the facts to law-making has to be understood. Neither the opposition nor the proposition is within its right to waste Parliament's crucial time by running political narratives; those better suit election campaigns. As it is called the temple of democracy, the sanctity of the Parliament has to be restored. Its floor should better be used to serve the people it represents and not for petty populism. Save people's representation and their money.