Withering away

In the recent past, the passage of Bills like RTI, Triple Talaq, River water disputes, Abrogation of Article 370 and bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir, etc., have provided for every reason to critically analyse the aspect of Parliament accountability more deeply.

The Indian Parliament completed 60 years of its existence seven years ago. A couple of parliamentarians of yesteryears were also felicitated on the occasion. However, over the years, the effectiveness of the Indian Parliament as an institution of accountability and supervision has been on a decline. The instruments for accountability like motions on the floor, oversight powers, committee system that Parliament can use, are being rendered dysfunctional. The globalisation of Indian economy eroded the power of Parliament. International treaties govern much of the economic decision-making and Parliament does not have a system of effective treaty oversight in place. The decision on these treaties would have been already taken and are unalterable by the time they come to Parliament. Parliamentary oversight on the powers which are being delegated to non-elected institutions is very weak.

Slow legislation process, more powers to executive in the form of ordinances substituting for legislation were identified as the weakness of the Indian Parliament. Parliament is increasingly becoming ineffective in providing scrutiny of the executive. Parliament itself has self-abdicated many of its functions. The imperatives of electoral and party politics facilitated in delaying of important legislation just for the sake of delay but not for any qualitative improvement in legislation. Parliament has become more of an oppositional space rather than a forum for genuine debate.

It is debatable as to what extent the Indian Parliament could be held responsible for the successes and failures of Indian democracy. Performance of parliamentary democracy is not independent of the performance of Parliament. Performance of legislators in a parliamentary system is more an outcome of the influence of the political party to which they belong than anything else. The quality of parliamentarians, judged by their qualifications and commitment, seems to be declining. Though India's current parliamentarians have much higher levels of formal education than in the past, sizable number among them has criminal backgrounds. This certainly has an impact on the functioning of Parliament.

The composition of Parliament in general and the Lok Sabha, in particular, has been a reliable index of the changing political preferences of Indian voters. The social composition of Parliament has changed considerably over the years. From its inception as an elite coterie of British educated lawyers, its members today are drawn from a variety of social strata and occupations. Parliament continues to lag behind in the representation of women, and through quotas, a certain number of seats have been earmarked for historically marginalised groups – the Scheduled Castes and Tribes – and this has ensured the representation of these groups in Parliament. Parliament, thus, is a reasonable representation of the diversity of social interests.

The "state of emergency" that Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared in 1975 was probably one of the most precarious episodes for parliamentary democracy and was not warranted by the national interest. There is also a general sense that the procedural norms that are the basis of parliamentary practice began to erode, particularly after the mid-1970s. The weakening of political parties, the multiplicity of political parties represented in Parliament, from five in the first Lok Sabha to nearly 40 subsequently as well as the changing nature of constituent services and re-election incentives have all transformed the institution of the Indian Parliament.

The primary objective of Parliament is to enact legislation, although it also has constitutional, financial and governmental powers. It is the sole body that can amend the Constitution. It is also the only body with the power to raise taxes and spend money, including the authority to pass the annual budget. The failure of the government to ensure the passage of the budget is automatically a vote of no-confidence. Finally, the Cabinet is collectively responsible to Parliament.

Parliament is the agency through which the government is held accountable. The opposition is the constituent part of Parliament that has the most incentive to use the statutory powers of Parliament to keep the government accountable. The principal reason that opposition parties in India do not scrutinise the day-to-day functions of government with any seriousness is that political parties are weak institutions. The ability of the opposition to function as an independent mechanism of accountability has little to do with the formal rules of Parliament.

There are various types of committees in the Indian Parliament namely standing committees like Committee on Public Accounts, the Committee on Estimates, the Committee on Public Undertakings and Ad hoc Committees which are usually appointed for a specific purpose and can be either select or joint. However, the Parliament itself tends to ignore the reports of its committees which is yet another reason for its declining accountability.

Legislation in the Parliament involves three stages corresponding to three readings of a bill. A distinction needs to be made between the workings of Parliament as an institution and the processes that go into the making of Parliament itself. The imperatives of raising electoral financing make parliamentarians beholden to special interests and in some cases corrupts them, distorts the legislative process and causes a considerable decline in Parliament standards.

Parliament's working hours has declined over the years. There is a sharp increase in adjournments of Houses as a result of disorderly scenes and interruptions where nothing could be recorded and nobody could hear the MPs. Due to interruptions, legislative proceedings are frequently disrupted to the point where there is no option but to adjourn. The disruption can take many forms including rushing to the well of the House and shouting in front of the speaker.

On one hand, it appears that parliamentarians spend most of their time attending to the affairs of their constituents. On the other hand, parliamentarians seem relatively uninterested or ineffective in utilising grants and policies for the development of their constituencies. This is exemplified by the extraordinary failure of the Local Area Development (MPLADS) scheme. It also seems that most MPs and their constituents seem to look upon MPs primarily as distributors of patronage rather than as policymakers. MPLADS is perhaps less important than its implications for Parliament as an institution of accountability.

Under the Indian Constitution, the president can, on the advice of the government and even in the absence of parliamentary legislation, promulgate ordinances to deal with matters that might arise from time to time. The frequent use of presidential ordinances cannot be seen other than as a way of bypassing the need to secure parliamentary approval for important legislation. While parliamentary democracy remains healthy, there are significant institutional challenges facing the Parliament and it is absolutely necessary to overcome them.

(The author is Chief PRO to Telangana CM. The views expressed are strictly personal)