Opinion A battle for Parliament
The sidelining of individual MPs carries costs for our democracy.
For those who hold on to the quaint idea that there are few things more exalted than a representative assembly deliberating on matters of common concern,Parliaments return to business offers some small consolation. But it is,at best,only a small consolation. Parliament still has to surmount huge obstacles if it is to regain any measure of authority. The structural odds are against it.
Lament on the decline of Parliaments is not new. Michael Oakeshott once wrote that whenever a new book is published,one should go and read an old one. The chapter on Decline of Legislatures in James Bryces Modern Democracies is extraordinarily prescient about the mechanisms by which the authority of legislatures is diminished. This was Bryces starting point: Every traveller who,curious in political affairs,inquires in the countries which he visits how their legislative bodies are working,receives from the elder men the same discouraging answer. They tell him,in terms much the same everywhere,that there is less brilliant speaking than in the days of their own youth,that the tone of manners has declined,that the best citizens are less disposed to enter the Chamber,that its proceedings are less fully reported and excite less interest,that a seat in it confers less social status,and that,for one reason or another,the respect felt for it has waned.
The most important mechanism that diminishes Parliament is the effacement of the individual legislator. Individual legislators are even more dependent upon the party hierarchy than in the past. No more than three or four leaders have any social base that allows them to be secure in the knowledge that they can stand their own ground against a party hierarchy. In some ways the rotation of constituencies is going to make individual MPs even more dependent upon the whims of the party hierarchy. The individuality of MPs has also been effaced by the anti-defection law,which has made party whips ubiquitous. Parliament can do itself a great favour by endorsing the sensible bill introduced by Manish Tewari,restricting whips to only certain classes of issues. This will allow the individuality of voices to emerge,and MPs can be judged on their record rather than a party whip. Otherwise individual MPs will remain hostage to the phenomenon Bryce so colourfully described: Moreover,the so-called Party Machines,which have been wont to nominate candidates,and on whose pleasure depends the political future of a large proportion of the members,prevented the will of the people from prevailing,making many members feel themselves responsible rather to it than to their constituencies.
Four other mechanisms diminished legislatures. The first was what might be called a democratising effect. Much of the older esteem of Parliament,Bryce contended,was because parliamentarians were considered to be social superiors. But as the composition of Parliament changed and social hierarchies broke down,people were less inclined to treat legislators with deference. In India,this mechanism is exacerbated by the fact that in social elites there is an ignorant social contempt for many MPs based on class or caste origin.
The second mechanism,already operative in Bryces day,was the asymmetry between politics and the media. Just as the increased volume of platform speaking by leading politicians has lessened the importance of the part which parliamentary debate used to play in forming public opinion,so has the growth of the newspaper press encroached on the province of the parliamentary orator… The average legislator fears the newspaper,but the newspaper does not fear the legislator,and the citizen who perceives this draws his own conclusions. Two things are at work here. Debates are simply less important. But equally,in a media age,it is difficult for sober politicians to control the message and be self-possessed.
The third mechanism was schizophrenic constituent expectations. The virtue of members had so often succumbed to temptations proceeding from powerful incorporated companies,and the habit of effecting jobs for local interests was so common,that a general suspicion had attached itself to their action. Bryces point was that we have a paradoxical attitude towards MPs. On the one hand,we want MPs to serve our particular interest: our constituency,our special interest,our job. On the other,we are contemptuous of them precisely for this reason.
The fourth mechanism was complexity and temptation. The issues of policy which now occupy legislatures are more complex and difficult than those of half a century ago. The strife of classes and formation of class parties were not foreseen,nor the vast scale on which economic problems would present themselves,nor the constant additions to the functions of governments,nor that immense increase of wealth which has in some countries exposed legislators to temptations more severe than any that had assailed their predecessors. Never was it clearer than it is today that Nature shows no disposition to produce men with a greatness proportioned to the scale of the problems they have to solve. The challenge of complexity requires that MPs have the right kind of institutional support. But we deny appropriate support to our MPs. As for temptation,parliamentary oversight itself is the only final answer.
A democracy has to believe that the only fate worse than being ruled by politicians is not being ruled by them. But even those who do esteem politicians focus on leaders; we shower praise on politicians who effectively sideline legislatures. In states,it would not be an exaggeration to say that we have almost a presidential form of government. Most state legislatures are in tatters. While this has made it easier for some chief ministers to govern in the short run,its consequences for democracy in the long run are not entirely clear.
There are now two other proximate dangers. Parliament is taken seriously when leaders take it seriously; the House of Commons retains interest because the prime minister directly answers questions. We underestimate how much Nehrus personal presence in Parliament elevated it. The second temptation is this: as the TRS legislators hinted,after the JPC episode,every party is now learning the lesson that blocking Parliament is an effective way of getting an obdurate government to respond.
Whether Parliament can effectively battle these dangers is an open question. Something dramatic will have to happen to break the vicious cycle that was Bryces nightmare: The defect perpetuates itself,because men are apt to live up to no higher standard than that which they find. The less the country respects them,the less they respect themselves.
The writer is president,Centre for Policy Research,Delhi
express@expressindia.com
Share
