Commentl

‘Laws of Reflection’

How much public money they waste by wasting and blocking parliamentary sessions each year is open to question. Having failed to push through a number of controversial bills, the government is now trying to convene a special session of parliament to pass two key bills including the National Food Security Bill. Indian Parliament, in fact, is successful by preventing transaction of serious business. Whether the opposition behaviour in parliament represents the people’s mood is anybody’s guess but in a way the delaying of passing of anti-people bills is not that bad though the Opposition seems to be doing it with an eye to the next general election. Maybe the lack of political consensus is but a reflection of the lack of public consensus. Maybe not. But in effect people are not unhappy with the development as they see more economic reforms in the form of new bills, now pending, mean more increase in wealth among politicians, officials and businessmen.

Whether they like it or not the basic purpose of parliamentary democracy is to prevent social unrest. The ruling elite provides a safety valve for the unrest to be released by the affected people getting a forum to voice their grievances which is then followed by undertaking some redistribution. During the nineteenth century, they say, most Western societies extended voting rights which led to 'unprecedented' redistributive programmes. Indian Constitution likewise states that the fundamental duty of the State is to secure the welfare of its citizens. The Government, appears to be treading a different path, however. For all practical purposes the policy is to run the economy in favour of large corporate houses and multinational companies as seen in the 2G Spectrum and Coalgate scandals. The welfare measures of Right to Education and Right to Food are designed to cover up this main objective by setting up a pro-poor facade.

Now effective functioning of a parliament requires that both sides share a common vision. No doubt there is an absence of common vision between the Government and the Opposition today. The Government wants to develop the country by giving a free run to big corporate houses and multinational companies. The opposition is not in agreement with this policy, so it seems—though it does not have a vision of its own. The contest is between pro-rich policies or against them.

If the real objectives of the parliamentarians are personal gain then both sides would have no incentive to cooperate with each other. They would be perpetually attacking each other. The politicians of both the ruling party and the opposition have captured the resources of the country to the detriment of the common good. But neither can openly state this. Thus the debate takes place in the parliament very superficially-like oil on water. Both sides have unstated objectives that are entirely different than what they say. As a result no meaningful debate can take place in the Parliament.

Voting patterns change if voters are provided more information and if they discuss and deliberate among themselves before voting. This is the model of the Gram Sabha. People get together, discuss and vote. On the other hand the election process is 'blind' in the sense that each voter comes with his own set of information and there is no discussion. The Parliamentary system lies somewhere in the middle. Nominal discussion takes place before voting. True discourse and deliberation, as took place in the Constituent Assembly, rarely takes place today. The Government appears to have a fixed mindset and the only option the opposition has is either to accept or reject it. As a result the Parliamentarians are not able to reach a decision. The Prime Minister speaks as if he knows all and others have only to follow the policies that he proposes. The only choice before the opposition, therefore, is to accept the policies proposed by the government or reject them. The opposition is in minority hence they would be defeated in a vote. They have, therefore, taken the path of obstructing the Parliament.

The basic requirements of democratic functioning are absent today. The policies espoused by the Government are more designed to enable a particular section of the society, especially politicians and bureaucrats, to extract resources of the country for personal gain. There is an all-pervasive distrust of the political system. In this situation the opposition has decided to take an aggressive stance and stalemate the Parliament instead of going along with the policies of the Government. Perhaps, this is better because people may hope somewhat against hope to have their feelings felt by default.
[contributed]

Frontier
Vol. 45, No. 49, June 16 -22, 2013

Your Comment if any