India is a constitutional democracy governed by a written constitution with a parliamentary system of government. 79 years after we won our freedom and over 76 years since the Constitution came into force, it is appropriate and essential to reflect upon how we have worked our democracy and its most vital institution, Parliament.
Democracy may be defined as the dwelling place which man has built for the spirit of liberty. It is founded on the principle that every person has equal value. What we now have, and can have, is not democracy as in ancient Greece. It is representative democracy and ours is a parliamentary system. Elections are the heartbeats of democracy. But that is not all. A democracy can decay and die not only when elections are not held. It can be impaired and even destroyed when institutions created and meant to make democracy function stop performing. Elections alone do not keep a democracy vigorous. The Constitution prescribes government by democratic legislatures with the executive accountable to them and resting ultimately on public opinion. The mainstay of a parliamentary system is accountability. Parliamentary democracy presupposes and rests on discussion and debate and arriving at a decision preferably by consensus or by majority opinion. Institutions are important and essential for a system to function well. Parliament is a pivotal institution in our constitutional scheme. Its twin primary objectives are law making and holding the executive accountable. In both these aspects there appears to be a marked deterioration, indeed a dismal failure. Parliament needs time and seriousness to question and scrutinize those who govern.
Democracy is not majoritarianism. The right to question, to probe and to dissent is of the very essence. All this becomes meaningless when Parliament does not function. The purpose of debates and discussion is to ensure that when a decision is finally made, it has been tested in the crucible of competing arguments and public scrutiny. With the kind of paralysis that has afflicted Parliament, legislative activity is reduced to a mockery. Law making is one of the primary tasks of Parliament. But that is not merely passing laws. The process that has to be gone through is important and essential. Debates before passing a bill are imperative. The churning of ideas and the arguments for and against a proposal help to bring out the best in the larger public interest. That would also give a clue as to the legislative intent behind a legislation. The fundamental axiom of a robust democratic framework is that the opposition must have its say, the government must have its way. Atal Behari Vajpayee, the illustrious Parliamentarian, then in the Opposition had told Prime Minister Indira Gandhi: 'We have the arguments, you have the numbers and the votes.'
All this goes overboard when Parliament does not function for whatever reason, when bald assertion replaces reasoned contention, discussion and consultation give way to conflict and confrontation and deliberation is supplanted by the force of numbers. No service is done by disrupting and paralysing Parliament. It is mainly the duty of the government to ensure that Parliament functions and transacts its business. It is, however, no less the task of the Opposition to secure the smooth running of Parliament. Neither side should take an extreme position. While occasional walk-outs and adjournments are legitimate tools in the hands of the Opposition, employing them always is detrimental even to their interest. The Opposition needs Parliament and its processes more, so as to question, expose and reign in the government. Disruption is no substitute for that function. But total disruption of Parliament has become the norm showing that the middle ground where negotiation earlier happened has almost vanished. Leaders on both sides are expected not only to defend their own side and stand but to ensure the working of the House despite disagreement. The ability of quiet persuasion is simply missing in the present leadership of parties. The difference between personal authority and institutional legitimacy ought never to be forgotten.
Now add to all this the proposal of increasing the strength of Parliament and the Parliamentarians being paid more.
The record and manner of Parliament's functioning in recent times have been very disconcerting. In the recently concluded monsoon session 11 bills were passed in 19 sittings, 10 of them taking a total of 64 minutes in the Lok Sabha and with no debate, only the piloting minister spoke in the case of 9 bills. The Question Hour occupied 9 minutes of the entire session and out of the 380 questions listed for oral answers only 2 were answered. This deprecatory performance brings into sharper focus the question of increasing the number of MPs. The case for more MPs is greater representation which is supposed to improve governance. That is, however, highly debatable. It flies in the face of the present track record. Experience shows that such increase would be counter-productive-more expenditure and less work. It is interesting and instructive to note that other democracies have not changed the size of their representative institutions despite increase in population. They have not required numerical optics.
The strength of a republic rests on the character of those who govern, as Aristotle wisely observed. Elected representatives owe their constituents their judgment. Sadly, today our parliamentary democracy has descended into an institutional apparatus of a corporate establishment with its own expanding class system of perks and privileges. Certainly, somewhere between legitimate assistance to the people's representatives to perform their duties and functions effectively and political largesse lies a line that democratic governments can ill-afford to cross, but which they do with increasing recurrence. Whatever the political changes, the political class cutting across party lines always rediscovers a common fraternity. While we are perpetually reminded of fiscal prudence, the ruling class, more often than not, thinks of what the public purse can give. The political class is becoming more expensive and the legislatures less deliberative. The question that comes home with a strange poignancy is: do we need a paid or a performing democracy?
These problems do not admit of any easy solutions. But we must talk and be alert. It is the force of public opinion that tempers all power. Rabbi Hillel's words over 2000 years ago resonate: “If not now, when? If not we, who?”
Author is a Senior Advocate at Supreme Court of India. Views are personal.