Indian MPs are unpredictable, but not necessarily predictably. At least three occasions in less than a year are worth noting: the raucous trust vote in July 2008 that saw shouting, well-storming, walk-outs (to say nothing of the crowning glory — the cash in the well of the House), all simultaneous to an engaging debate; the responsible, respectable, well-articulated and structured debate on anti-terror legislation post-26/11; and the surreal 17-minute passage of eight bills on the last day of the “monsoon session” in December. Each of these highlighted that MPs could dictate the quality and length of time devoted to an issue as they chose, and not usually to anybody’s benefit other than their own. Yet, any last judgment on the 14th Lok Sabha must take into account then-Speaker Somnath Chatterjee’s devastating audit — a frightening record of absences, resignations, suspensions and expulsions; a mere 332 sittings in five long years; 423 hours wasted by disruptions and adjournments. Additionally, there were MPs who had never participated in a debate or never asked a question during Question Hour.

MPs have to bear responsibility for their conduct in the House; on the other hand, the anti-defection legislation hinders useful debate by erasing an MP’s latitude vis-à-vis the party whip. Nevertheless, as Parliament heads for the Budget session, it is worth reiterating the need for systemic reform — for instance, greater rewards and scope for participation, a prime minister’s question hour and parliamentary hearings. Introducing these changes would not only foreground debate on the floor of the House but also enhance the quality of that debate. The first structured debate on the economic crisis — last December — involved 17 speakers but only about 70 listeners. That is an image the 15th Lok Sabha must lay to rest.