A diminished House

Parliamentary scrutiny is necessary for maximum governance. Modi government has yet to acknowledge this.

Written by D Raja | Updated: May 26, 2015 12:12 am

The Narendra Modi government is completing a year in office. One has to critically look at its functioning and its paralysing impact on our parliamentary democracy, particularly the institutions of Parliament. The framers of our Constitution consciously adopted parliamentary democracy to ensure regular and continuous accountability of the government. B.R. Ambedkar had eloquently stated that the parliamentary system of democracy is based on accountability and the presidential system is based on stability of the executive.

Ever since the NDA won office, the government’s accountability to the legislature has been consciously compromised and eroded on account of the deliberate strategy followed (by the government) to bypass parliamentary scrutiny. During the last Parliament session, the government purposefully did not refer many bills to the department-related standing committees for examination and scrutiny, even though several Rajya Sabha MPs, across party lines, demanded that these be properly scrutinised by parliamentary committees. The calculated measure of the government to ignore Parliament is unacceptable. It constitutes a negation of parliamentary oversight of the legislative proposals, which have a far-reaching impact on our people, polity and society.

It strikes at the very root of Parliament and parliamentary democracy in India. It is all the more unfortunate that Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, a Rajya Sabha MP who occupies the exalted position of the leader of the House, made a statement that an unelected body like the Rajya Sabha cannot sit over the judgement of the Lok Sabha, which is an elected House.

Such statements from top leaders of the governmentdo not augur well for our democracy. The resilience of the bicameral system in India, in a way, reflects the resilience of our democracy. Instances of getting some bills labelled as money bills so that the Rajya Sabha would have no effective role in the passage of such bills and the government, with its clear majority in the lower House of Parliament, could easily pass them would jeopardise our bicameral system.

The Modi government’s slogan is “minimum government, maximum governance.” But the ominous trend manifested in bypassing parliamentary committees for the early passage of bills goes against the very spirit of governance. It is well stated in a report on the Modernisation of the House of Commons in the UK that “better scrutiny leads to better governance.” Those who swear by minimum government, maximum governance should subject all their decisions to better parliamentary scrutiny to realise in practice the ideals of maximum governance. The tragic abandonment of parliamentary scrutiny will endanger the democratic method of governance that Ambedkar so eloquently proclaimed in his last speech in the Constituent Assembly in order to save India from what he called the “grammar of anarchy”, which, he said, would prevail if unconstitutional methods were adopted for the redress of grievances.

In the Constituent Assembly, when discussion was taking place on the draft article on Parliament, a member insightfully observed that Parliament belongs to the opposition. If that is so, then the functioning of Parliament greatly depends on the role played by the opposition. It is because of the constructive role of the opposition during the past one year that the government could pass a number of bills. Had the present opposition behaved like the BJP in the last Parliament, the government would have cut a sorry figure and Parliament’s image would have been tarnished. The opposition’s demand that the government’s legislative proposals be scrutinised in parliamentary committees speaks volumes for the role of Parliament in ensuring accountability of the executive.

PM Modi reverentially bowed and touched his head on the steps of Parliament while entering this temple of democracy after he and his party won the last general election. It is rather ironic that his demonstrated reverence for Parliament is not in harmony with the policies and actions of his government vis-à-vis Parliament.

Mahatma Gandhi was a critic of Parliament. However, during our struggle for independence, he said on one occasion that India was struggling in a non-violent manner to attain parliamentary swaraj. Yet, on another occasion in 1917, he had said, “What then would our Parliament do if we had one? When we have it, we would have aright to commit blunders and correct them. In the early stages we are bound to make blunders. But we, being children of the soil, won’t lose time in setting ourselves right. We shall, therefore, soon find out remedies against poverty.”

Will the NDA government set its actions right to strengthen Parliament? That would be a fitting tribute to the founders of our republic, who had a vision of banishing poverty and developing our nation without compromising the freedom and liberty of the people.

The writer is national secretary of the CPI and a Rajya Sabha MP.

First Published on: May 26, 2015 12:05 am