Suspension of MPs: Will it strengthen Parliament?

If one analyses the context of the incident and the punitive action taken against MPs, it is clear that it is hardly related to the orderly functioning of the House. The intention is to ensure the smooth passage of bills in the Rajya Sabha where the ruling party does not have a majority

IT is only natural that the suspension of 12 Rajya Sabha MPs has sparked a debate about the future of India's parliamentary democracy. The action is not without precedence and has been taken in earlier regimes as well. However, there is a difference. On earlier occasions, the presiding officer had done it to restore the orderly functioning of the House. The messages were clear and loud that lawmakers should behave in a manner that allowed the House to perform its prime duty of lawmaking and oversee all small and big happenings in the country that affect the polity. This time, the objective was not the same and the role of the presiding officer is in question.

Here, the debate over the extent of the power of the presiding officer seems to be flawed and meaningless. No one can dispute that he has all the powers at his disposal to affect an orderly functioning in the House. However, the limitations of his authority are clear and need no elaboration. The scope of his powers is limited to the functioning of the House. So, the context becomes important. Has he taken the action to effect an orderly function in the House? The evidence suggests otherwise.

The incident on August 10, during the last Monsoon session, cannot be explained in simple terms. There is ample evidence that the portrayal of the incident is not neutral. Not only is the use of security guards and the interpretation of the incident in question, but the process applied to suspend the MPs is also in dispute. The Opposition is pointing out too many procedural flaws in the decision. However, these questions are relevant only in the context of the functioning of the House. Here, the objective is entirely different. Had it been a case of ensuring the smooth functioning of the House, no action would have been taken in the Winter session for an incident in the last session. This is a general rule that says these kinds of decisions are limited to the session in which they are involved. There is no attempt on the part of the government or the presiding officer to come clear on these questions. Instead, a campaign has been launched to vilify the Opposition. How can anyone buy the argument that the Opposition is disrupting the House to escape debates over bills or that it does not want the government to answer questions raised in the House?

If one analyses the context of the incident and the punitive action taken against MPs, it is clear that it is hardly related to the orderly functioning of the House. The intention is to ensure the smooth passage of bills in the Rajya Sabha where the ruling party does not have a majority. The incident has become a pretext to manufacture a majority to pass bills without taking opposition parties into confidence.

The government's claim that it wants the House to function does not hold water. The latest example is the passage of the bills to repeal three farm laws. This was done without any discussion, and the demand for a discussion was rejected. How can the House function when a simple demand from the Opposition for a discussion is rejected? The only option before the Opposition is to boycott the House or disrupt it in order to force a discussion. They would be failing in their duties if they did not confront the government.

We need to contextualise the whole debate on the issue. There is a cry over the issue of disruptions in Parliament, and the media is portraying it as irresponsible political behavior on the part of the opposition parties. They highlight lost hours due to disruptions. The reality is otherwise. Over the years, successive governments have reduced the working days of Parliament. The cabinet decides the working days of a session, and there is no role for the Opposition in it. According to statistics, the average working days for Parliament were 120 a year from 1952 to 1972, and they have since been significantly reduced. The reduction has been at a minimum since 1914, the year Narendra Modi took over. The average number of working days from 2014 to 2019 was 66, compared to 93 in 2012–2013. Time spent on discussing a bill has also come to a minimum. Many bills were passed without discussion or with a minimum of discussion. The latest example is the passage of a bill to repeal farm laws. It was passed in 4 minutes in the Lok Sabha. This was obviously done to prevent it from raising demands such as a law to ensure a minimum support price for farm produce and other agriculture-related issues.

People are citing Modi's stint as Chief Minister. The Gujarat assembly recorded the lowest number of working days during his time and repeated suspensions of Opposition members. The assembly has also made records for passing bills without discussion. In contrast, the Kerala state assembly has the highest average number of working days.

Passage of bills without discussion is a sort of manufacturing parliamentary consent for decisions that lack consensus. The involvement of opposition parties in the law-making process is at the core of parliamentary democracy. In the United Kingdom and the USA, every single voice counts. The right of the lawmaker to place his views is non-alienable and is ensured by the presiding officer. It is sad to note that Opposition members have lost protection from the chair. Instead, they are being punished for raising their voice. However, the issue cannot be seen in isolation. The Modi government is not only doing it in Parliament but also doing the same thing with other democratic institutions as well. The Prime Minister never attends all-party meetings and does not convene press conferences. His appearance in the media is also limited to his monologues, where he does not take questions. The suspension of MPs is part of the Modi government's operating style.

(Anil Sinha is a senior journalist. He has experience of working with leading newspapers and electronic media including Deccan Herald, Sunday Guardian, Navbharat Times and Dainik Bhaskar. He writes on politics, society, environment and economy)