Parliament dysfunction costs us dear

Opposition MPs stage a protest seeking a response from the government on police action on student demonstrators and alleged theft of Ayodhya’s Ram temple donations during the Monsoon Session of Parliament in New Delhi. PIC/PTI

The monsoon session of Parliament has ended, but it has left behind a question that should concern every Indian: what do taxpayers get when Parliament does not function properly?

Parliament is not just a building in Delhi. It is where the country's elected representatives are expected to debate laws, question the government and speak about problems faced by ordinary citizens. But when proceedings are repeatedly disrupted, debates are cut short, and Parliamentary democracy loses. And the taxpayer pays for it.

The latest session is a good example. The Lok Sabha reportedly worked for only about 19 per cent of its scheduled time, while the Rajya Sabha recorded around 39 per cent productivity. Several Bills were passed, but many did not get the kind of detailed discussion that Parliament is supposed to provide. The government can blame the Opposition for the disruptions. The Opposition can argue that it was forced to protest because the government was not ready to discuss issues it considered uncomfortable. Both sides may have some justification.

But the bigger question is does the country really benefit when Parliament becomes a place for shouting rather than discussion?

The Opposition has every right to protest. In fact, a strong Opposition is essential for democracy. A government with a majority should not be allowed to simply do whatever it wants.

Opposition MPs must question decisions, point out mistakes, and demand answers.

But there is a difference between protesting inside Parliament and preventing Parliament from functioning.

If MPs repeatedly enter the Well of the House, raise slogans and force adjournments, they may get television coverage and political attention. But they also lose the opportunity to make their case properly before the country.

The same applies to the government. Parliament is the place where its advantages, disadvantages, and possible problems should be examined. MPs should be able to ask questions, suggest changes, and explain how a proposed law may affect citizens. If a Bill is passed with little discussion, the government may get a legislative victory, but democracy loses an important part of the process.

This is where the taxpayer comes into the picture. Parliament is funded by public money. The salaries and allowances of MPs, the huge administrative machinery, security, staff, buildings, and all the other expenses involved in running Parliament ultimately come from the taxpayer.

Nobody expects Parliament to work every minute without interruption. Protest and disagreements are part of democracy. But when disruption becomes routine, the country has a right to ask a simple question: why should taxpayers pay for a Parliament that spends so much of its time not debating?

And there is another danger.

If disruption becomes normal, people may slowly start believing that Parliament itself is not important. That would be a serious loss for democracy.

The government also needs to understand that a majority is not a licence to avoid difficult questions. A majority gives a government the power to govern, not the right to escape scrutiny.

The Opposition, on the other hand, must understand that being aggressive does not necessarily mean being effective. A strong Opposition cannot stop Parliament from functioning.

It can use Parliament to expose weakness in government policy and convince the public of its argument.

In the end, therefore, this is not a story about who won or lost the Monsoon Session. Both sides may have lost something. The Opposition may have demonstrated unity, but unity has little meaning if it cannot be converted into meaningful debate. The government may have passed Bills, but legislation without adequate discussion weakens the very institution that gives those laws democratic legitimacy.

The people of India do not expect Parliament to be free of political fights. They expect their representatives to fight for them.

They pay taxes. They vote. They send their representatives to Parliament. In return, they deserve a Parliament that talks, debates, questions, and works.

Political parties may see disruption as a strategy. They may see it as a way to score points against each other. But the cost is ultimately borne by the ordinary citizens.

When Parliament stops talking, democracy loses its voice. And when Parliament stops working, the taxpayer is left paying the Bill.

Sanjeev Shivadekar is political editor, mid-day. He tweets @SanjeevShivadek
Send your feedback to mailbag@mid-day.com
The views expressed in this column are the individual's and don't represent those of the paper.