Making Parliament work

AT LAST, A palpably exasperated Lok Sabha Speaker, Mr. G.M.C. Balayogi, has moved rather decisively to curb the growing tendency of members to brazenly defy the Chair, by seeking to raise issues in utter disregard of established rules of procedure, and eventually to paralyse the proceedings of the House. The move, which is apparently backed by a political consensus, to incorporate in the rulebook a provision for an ``automatic'' one-week suspension is to be welcomed in the context of the rapid deterioration perceived in the behaviour of the members of Parliament. Shows of defiance and unruly conduct - reflecting generally in members rushing into the well of the House, full-throated protests and noisy interruptions - and the resultant forced adjournments have in recent times become so commonplace that one may not be faulted if he were to decide these were indeed the `recognised norms' of parliamentary behaviour. It was once thought a live telecast of the proceedings, even if partial, would have a chastening effect on the potentially errant members because they would become conscious that their `performance' was being watched by the electorate. If the continuing deterioration is any indication, it seems to have had little or no such impact.

Although the types of deviant behaviour that would attract the `automatic suspension' rule being envisaged have not been delineated clearly, as yet, the ones reported to have been suggested by Mr. Balayogi include: moving into the well of the House, defying the Chair and breaking the decorum or in any way making it impossible for the House to function. Except perhaps in the case of `moving into the well', which lends itself to physical verification, the conditions indicated as grounds for `automatic suspension' are really subject to the Chair's subjective assessment. It is not as though, under the rules of parliamentary procedure as they now exist, the Chair lacks the authority or power to penalise recalcitrant members. In fact, the presiding officer is vested with unbridled powers in running the affairs of the House and it is evidently dictated by the overriding imperative of ensuring the smooth conduct of the supreme body of parliamentary democracy. In practical terms, what counts, therefore, is how tactful the Speaker is in handling a dicey situation and how judicious is he in wielding the stick. This should apply also to the `automatic suspension' rule because, for all the deterrence implied in it, much depends on whether the Chair chooses to invoke the rule in the way it ought to be. If only the Speaker succeeds in projecting an image of himself (or herself) as a strong willed person who means business and brooks no nonsense, he (or she) will have half-ensured the smooth functioning of the House.

This said, one cannot but point to an element of hypocrisy in the fact of the political class bemoaning the alarmingly high incidence of disorder and obstructionist tactics in Parliament when the simple truth is that the main culprits they point to are inevitably from their own ranks (and their own leaders). Protests of course are a vital and healthy part of a vibrant democracy and the Opposition's right to raise issues that agitate it cannot be called into question. But the political parties, especially those constituting the mainstream, need to ask themselves whether by paralysing Parliament and holding it to ransom in the name of exercising that right they are not undermining the very institution of parliamentary democracy. Parliament's claim to privileges, about which it is overly possessive, presupposes a respect it commands due to its representative character and its being the repository of people's power. If Parliament is not to forfeit that respect of its electors, the political parties of all hues having stakes in democratic polity need to show a better account of themselves by playing their role responsibly and in accordance with the established rules and conventions of the parliamentary game, whether they happen to be in power or in the Opposition. Which is to say the problem of ensuring the smooth conduct of Parliament has as much to do with the various political parties and groups represented therein mending their ways.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : Putting conflict before cricket