The budget session of Parliament ended on Thursday, unable to overcome the impasse caused by the Adani JPC issue, as well as the controversy generated by Rahul Gandhi’s conviction and disqualification from membership of the Lok Sabha. Owing to the continuous uproar, the Lower House could function only for 45 hours, 55 minutes. The entire nation has watched how parliamentarians as a whole have failed to perform the role assigned to them. It is no surprise, therefore, that the elected representatives are ceding power to other institutions, particularly the Judiciary, which perforce have to fill in for them.
This has as much to do with the opposition as the ruling parties at the Centre and the States. Much of the behaviour in Parliament, for instance, is directed at hitting the news headlines, even if for the wrong reasons, rather than scrutinising legislation and contributing to the making of better laws, among other duties. The debates on TV news channels are more energetic and informed, even if designed to aggravate, than any in Parliament.
This does not impact so much on the government, which can increasingly resort to presidential form of functioning. It is the opposition that is giving up on the opportunities to hold the ruling party to account, by creating disturbances that lead to repeated adjournments. In the case of the demand for a JPC on the allegations regarding the Adani Group, for instance, is it the opposition’s belief that the necessary impact has been made on public opinion? The failure to take up the numerous other issues in the public’s interest has definitely impacted the rights of individual MPs to have their respective constituencies’ voices heard.
The role and power of the MPs has been continuously diminishing over the years, which is by no means a good thing. More than anybody else, it is the MPs who should be demanding that the necessary reforms be undertaken so that they remain relevant to the system, rather than just constitute numbers to make up a majority. The ‘freedom’ to disrupt the functioning of the LS or RS needs to be curtailed. The initiative has to be taken by the LS Speaker and the RS Chairman after consultations with concerned parliamentarians. A consensus needs to be arrived at to take strict action against those who break the rules of the respective houses with impunity. The legislative wing should at least put up a good fight, rather than surrender meekly to behaviour so intent on committing democratic hara kiri.
