Opinion Fix the holes in the House

Parliament’s authority has been weakened because the charge that the institution is a collusive oligarchy has some appeal. But its transformation from a chamber to an ante-chamber was not created by civil society,but by politics itself. And solutions must be found within politics.

The perception that Parliament is a managed oligarchy is at the heart of the impasse over the authority of the standing committee. Empirically,standing committees have been varied in their performance — from the genuinely open and brilliant to the callous and indifferent. But in the current crisis,defending its formal authority may not suffice.

There are structural features that give Parliament an appearance of a managed cabal. Party whips that effectively concentrate power in the leadership of parties and make individual MPs lose their individuality. Our anti-defection law,one of whose early votaries was Shanti Bhushan,is an object lesson in how absurd and fraught with unintended consequences legislation can be,if it is premised on complete mistrust. This law also reinforced the power of party leaders,and killed off the stakes in any debate. And most legislation is voted on as an all-or-nothing affair. Civil society’s main worry is that this bill will be such a managed affair.

At one stroke Parliament can fix these. All parties should declare that there will be no whips on the Lokpal issue. Any MP will be able to move any amendment,and will be encouraged to do so. Each principal amendment — should the prime minister or judiciary be or not be included — will be debated on its merits. This will have the following advantages. It will get over the absurd debate over whether one,two or three bills should be taken into account. It will force MPs to behave like consequential legislators,not rubber stamps for bills that come on from high. In an open debate,with each issue up for vote,more interesting possibilities will open up. It will test the mettle of individual MPs,create possibilities for odd coalitions across party lines,and provide for a genuinely open debate in a representative forum. There are challenges in managing this. Most importantly,a mechanism will have to be found to reconcile the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha versions. But that is not an insurmountable challenge. Some might fear that individual MPs will succumb to populism. Certainly,legislating under public frenzy is a fraught exercise. But we cannot defend Parliament and at the same time insist that we cannot trust MPs. Civil society should have no objection; if need be,it can mobilise for or against individual MPs. We don’t fully know how all this would work out. But it will have the effect of invigorating Parliament.

But Parliament’s authority has also been weakened by choices the Congress made,which it must now undo. First,having a PM who did not have political power,but more importantly,who was not able to use his office to project political power,has cost us dear. The Congress culture reinforced this — where the PM is shielding himself behind the police commissioner,the real power is ordering Anna’s release. The diminution of the Prime Minister’s Office is central to the diminution of Parliament. No one is seeing the needless diminution in bringing the PM under the Lokpal because he is a reduced figure. Anna Hazare’s retort to the PM,“by whose authority do you govern?”,was not without bite. This has to be corrected,even at the cost of Manmohan Singh resigning.

Second,Rahul Gandhi seems to have the bizarre idea that electoral politics is one thing,while the national interest is some game elites play. So the only real issues are those that pertain to mobilising discontent in assorted places from Orissa to Uttar Pradesh. Evasion is the proper response to almost all other issues. This disease has afflicted all the young politicians in the party,who stand on neither their own feet nor their ideas. Elections are complicated things,so the outcome is far from uncertain. But there is no doubt the Congress lost touch with how India has changed. In its majestic evasions and contempt of policy as an elite affair,it inevitably sent a signal that much of what Parliament does is not worthy of attention from high leaders.

Third,we know interests and identities influence politics. But Parliament’s authority rests on the belief that there is such a thing as being persuaded by the force of good arguments. In that exchange,the provenance of ideas is less important than their content. That is why,in a subtle way,reducing political discourse to claims like “this is a middle-class argument” or this is an “upper caste” or a “Dalit” argument,etc,can be corrosive. These claims are understandable as ways of contesting monopolies of power. They are not illuminating ways of assessing policies. If we don’t believe in public reason,Parliament has no business claiming authority.

The crisis of parliamentary authority will only deepen,and fixing it is a long haul. Movements are unpredictable. Any outcome,from the government caving in to fresh elections,is possible. But make no mistake — this is now also a battle for rescuing the intellectual foundations of parliamentary government.

The writer is president,Centre for Policy Research,Delhi
express@expressindia.com