The suspension from the House of a large number of Opposition Members of Parliament in the Winter Session underlines the institutional weakening of our political system. Parliament has been converted into a zone of conflict, where the established norms of discussion and deliberation are being conveniently sidelined. The ruling party invokes the House rules to supersede the parliamentary customs and conventions simply to get rid of the Opposition while the Opposition uses the act of disruption as a legitimate political technique.
This government versus Opposition framework, however, should not be exaggerated. It is an outcome of a much deeper political crisis, which poses a serious challenge to our democratic values and egalitarian constitutional principles. In my view, there are four identifiable facets of this political crisis.
First, the idea of legislative discussion has lost its political significance. A close reading of parliamentary debates in recent years shows that MPs always adhere to party-line and/or the compulsion of a coalition/block to make any comment, criticism or observation. These remarks are often delivered in the form of a political speech, which usually does not determine the outcomes of actual legislative business. The parliamentary discussion, in this sense, turns out to be a collection of unrelated speeches, disruptions and sloganeering. Except for a few MPs, who still research to ask questions or make comments, a significant majority of lawmakers usually do not make any meaningful contribution to legislative discussions. The failure of parliamentarians to evolve a culture of mutual learning through healthy discussions and deliberations has weakened the democratic capability of Parliament as the supreme legislative body.
The professionalisation of politics is the second related problem of the present political predicament. It is worth noting that post-colonial Indian politics inherited certain values and commitments from the national movement. That is why democratic politics was always defined as a form of social service in the early decades after Independence. Political leaders used to characterise themselves as kind, compassionate and selfless individuals committed to the well-being of the communities they represented.
The requirements of electoral competition, however, gave concrete practical meanings to this imagination of politics. Factors such as caste, religion and regional identity were recognised as powerful tools to make winnable configurations of voters. At the same time, such professional moves were justified in the name of moral ideals — socialism, nationalism, cultural unity and even emotional integration.
Politics is now being seen rather differently. It is clearly recognised as a profession to gain power and achieve upward mobility. The practical obligations are boldly followed by political leaders, especially newcomers, to attract the attention of party bosses and the media. They prefer to speak the language which can give them greater visibility. For example, the politicians who used to celebrate secularism as the ultimate moral value during the time of the UPA government, do not hesitate to mock it as an outdated idea after joining the BJP. They know that this kind of shift is an acceptable norm of contemporary political culture.
The third facet is the intellectual aspect. Political parties envisage themselves as competing firms. Electoral packages are made to attract voters as consumers in the electoral marketplace. This new form of competitive politics corresponds to the compulsions of the post-ideological world. Political parties do not need to burnish their ideological superiority; instead, there is an enthusiasm to embrace the dominant political narrative for electoral viability. Non-BJP parties, for instance, are no longer interested in posing any intellectual challenge to Hindutva-driven nationalism, especially in electoral politics. Despite discovering the caste survey as an important political issue, the Opposition, it seems, still finds Hindutva, or at least a softer version of it, attractive and compelling. The BJP, on the other hand, does not want to clarify its version of Hindutva. Unlike RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, who tried to offer a new meaning to Hindutva in his 2018 lectures, BJP leaders often remain silent on this issue. The party constitution still claims to adhere to integral humanism and Gandhian socialism as the philosophical foundation for its politics of cultural nationalism. It does not mention Hindutva. This absence contradicts the impression that Hindutva means the actions, statements and policies associated with the BJP as a political party and/or its individual leaders. The intellectual bankruptcy of the political class does not allow it to generate new political ideas and imaginations. As a result, the level of legislative discussions is compromised and disruptions/suspensions become the acceptable norms of doing politics inside Parliament.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is a serious decline of political morality. The Constitution expects legislators to evolve a political value-system so as to make themselves collectively accountable and responsible. Expressions such as the “dignity”, “respect”, and “accountability” of Parliament, in this sense, would become meaningful if the members, especially those who are responsible for running the House, themselves follow the evolved norms, traditions and procedures. The manner in which the Rules to conduct legislative business have been invoked this time is deeply problematic. These Rules, we must remember, are based on constitutional principles. They ought to be applied in such a way that they correspond to these principles. Their imposition without any reference to larger democratic principles makes them politically inappropriate and logically unsustainable. This moral failure in public life forces the political class to transform the Constitution into a sacred and divine book. They simply want to restrict the transformative capability of this excellent political resource.
CSDS-Lokniti Surveys show that common Indians recognise Parliament as one of the most trusted public institutions in India. The enthusiastic electoral participation of voters in general elections also confirms this political belief. It means that the people, whom the Constitution recognises as the real sovereign, expect Parliament to protect and nurture democratic values. The political class should pay attention to this popular sentiment.
The writer is associate professor, CSDS, New Delhi
This government versus Opposition framework is an outcome of a much deeper political crisis
20
13
21.12.2023
The suspension from the House of a large number of Opposition Members of Parliament in the Winter Session underlines the institutional weakening of our political system. Parliament has been converted into a zone of conflict, where the established norms of discussion and deliberation are being conveniently sidelined. The ruling party invokes the House rules to supersede the parliamentary customs and conventions simply to get rid of the Opposition while the Opposition uses the act of disruption as a legitimate political technique.
This government versus Opposition framework, however, should not be exaggerated. It is an outcome of a much deeper political crisis, which poses a serious challenge to our democratic values and egalitarian constitutional principles. In my view, there are four identifiable facets of this political crisis.
First, the idea of legislative discussion has lost its political significance. A close reading of parliamentary debates in recent years shows that MPs always adhere to party-line and/or the compulsion of a coalition/block to make any comment, criticism or observation. These remarks are often delivered in the form of a political speech, which usually does not determine the outcomes of actual legislative business. The parliamentary discussion, in this sense, turns out to be a collection of unrelated speeches, disruptions and sloganeering. Except for a few MPs, who still research to ask questions or make comments, a significant majority of lawmakers usually do not make any meaningful contribution to legislative discussions. The failure of parliamentarians to evolve a culture of mutual learning through healthy........
© Indian Express
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Donald Low
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
