Reclaiming a pillar of democracy

Parliament house, with the statue of Mahatma Gandhi in the foreground.-RAJEEV BHATT

What will become of parliamentary democracy if Parliament becomes non-functional because of the antics of a few members?

JUST what is it that has affected some of our representatives in the two highest fora of legislative power in the country? One would imagine that the great responsibility that comes to each of them as they take the oath as members of the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha would make them think carefully about what they say, and what they oppose or support in the Houses. Political parties would, one would also assume, weigh each issue carefully, conscious of the effect that their position would have on the country one way or the other. And while many MPs do behave with the decorum expected of them in these Houses, a few clearly consider them to be arenas where they can demonstrate their lung power and the nature of unruly behaviour that they are capable of.

Parliament is the third arm or dimension of our democratic polity, and the forum where laws to govern the affairs of the country are made, major issues are discussed, and the concerns of the nation as a whole are given a focus. It is in a real sense the one institution out of the three that mirrors the views of the country as a whole.

If we, as ordinary citizens, understand this much, surely those elected to the two Houses of Parliament understand it, much more; which is why the behaviour of some of them within the two Houses is so difficult to understand. Not all members behave in an indisciplined and unruly manner; a large number attend the sessions of both Houses and sit quietly, watching some of their colleagues prevent the two Houses from transacting any of the important business before them.

Judges of the Supreme Court are, like Members of Parliament, sworn in and when they take the oath, they promise to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land. Every one of them not only does that, but also upholds the dignity and decorum that the highest judicial forum in the land demands. Can one even begin to imagine Judges of the Supreme Court rushing down from their seats shouting slogans, waving papers and blocking the business of the court? This is utterly unthinkable; is it then true that some Members of Parliament - those who disrupt the proceedings of both Houses - are less conscious of the responsibilities they pledge to discharge under an oath. Or do they consider their oath to be an empty ritual, and the values enshrined in the oath something to be treated with contempt? That is exactly what they do when they disrupt the proceedings of Parliament; so what do they then want, through such action, to convey to those who elected them? That all the values that hold the nation together, the very nature of parliamentary democracy, is a ridiculous business, a means to get to Parliament to be able to make the governing of the country, and its development, impossible or as ineffective as they can make it?

Those MPs who disrupt the proceedings of Parliament must be naive indeed if they think that, in that ideal scenario they dream of - namely, when they form the government and have the responsibility of ruling the country - those then in the Opposition will let them function. There will be the same disgraceful scenes enacted every day, or nearly every day, in the sanctum sanctorum of parliamentary democracy. And so, inevitably, that is what a handful of people elected to be MPs will reduce the Houses of Parliament to - two chambers where loud, raucous ranting and even throwing about of papers will continue through the time the session lasts, with the majority of the MPs sitting quietly, allowing the Houses to be hijacked by a set of members who obviously have no belief in, leave alone any respect for, the values of our system of governance.

When, pursuant to the adoption of the Constitution, the two Houses of Parliament came into being, the members who came to them brought to the Houses a dignity and gravitas that symbolised the inherent strength of our democracy. Jawaharlal Nehru, Govind Ballabh Pant, Hiren Mukherjee, Ram Manohar Lohia, Vallabhbhai Patel, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and others not only spoke eloquently, but also upheld the decorum of the Houses. It did not make them lesser leaders because they did not rush into the well of the House, snatch papers from Ministers, scream at the Chair and behave in a manner that forced the Speaker or Chairman to adjourn the Houses. And members who do that today are certainly not bringing themselves anywhere near the stature of those leaders mentioned, and others equally distinguished and respected.

What, then, will become of parliamentary democracy, if Parliament becomes non-functional because of the antics of a few? It is clear that it cannot survive for very long in its present form, and something else, perhaps even worse, will take its place. A horror, of the kind W.B. Yeats described in his poem The Second Coming:

... The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert A shape with lion body and the head of a man, A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun, Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds. The darkness drops again; but now I know That twenty centuries of stony sleep Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

That is not the kind of terror that those who value parliamentary democracy, a system that has, somehow, been nurtured through the last half century, will want to see come upon us. But the great and worrying question is what can be done to prevent it. Will the leaders of those parties now in the Opposition and those in government agree to avoid all manner of behaviour that lowers the dignity of Parliament? It may well be that the ruling United Progressive Alliance will be eager to agree to this right now, but if it loses the elections in 2009, will it continue with its resolve never to disrupt the proceedings of either House?

That is obviously the easiest answer, but also, alas, one that we know will never work. Such decisions have been taken before, and the kind of behaviour we witness in Parliament now speaks of the value political parties give to such decisions. Other means of ensuring that the dignity of Parliament is maintained have, therefore, to be found.

One of these may come from the fact that the unruly behaviour that disrupts the functioning of Parliament is confined to a limited number of MPs, certainly not the majority, not by any means. It may just be possible for the larger number of MPs who do not behave in this fashion, who are surely concerned and worried about the worsening standards of behaviour of a few of their colleagues, to come together and determine a course of positive action that will stop such behaviour and not just sit and wring their hands in anguish and helplessness.

Is that too much to expect? Can this silent majority speak up in their party meetings and forcefully make the point that they, at least, do not want to sit and watch Parliament's dignity being shredded?

They surely can, and if they do not, their constituents can make them speak up. It is, admittedly, a faint hope but one that does exist, and just may work, over time.

And other means can also be explored. The real issue is whether parliamentary democracy will die, or flourish with vigour, and effectively, in the country; all of us have a stake in its doing the latter, and all of us have, consequently, to share in the reclamation of this most valuable part of our polity.