Opinion Out of my mind: A better parliament?
While the Congress had monopoly of power at the Centre and in the states, it did not matter how power was divided.
The new govt has inaugurated a much more equal and much more strictly constitutional treatment between the Centre and states, NITI Aayog is unlike the Planning Commission, and fiscal transfers are more generous.
When the Labour Party won a majority for the first time in 1945, the British Parliament had to face a problem. While Labour had a solid majority of above 150 in the House of Commons, it had fewer than 20 Lords among the 750 in the House of Lords. Then by negotiations, the Salsbury Convention was established, that the Opposition will not block any Bill which had been promised in the manifesto of the governing party. An old unwritten constitution was thus profoundly changed to accommodate new realities.
The first written constitution for India was the Government of India 1935 Act, which was the longest piece of legislation discussed by the British Parliament until 1999, four million words were spoken in the House of Commons alone on it. It envisaged a federal polity with strong states and a weak Centre. Had the Cripps Mission in 1942 or the Cabinet Mission of 1946 settled the issue, undivided India would have been more of a confederation with a weak Centre than a Union with a strong Centre. That profound change was wrought in the two years after Partition. India became a Union, a federation with a strong Centre.
While the Congress had monopoly of power at the Centre and in the states, it did not matter how power was divided.
But since 1967, as the Congress has had to share power at the Centre with others at the state level, there have been strains. President’s Rule has been much misused. Non-Congress governments complained of the fiscal meanness the Centre practised against them. The Planning Commission, an unelected body, controlled the distribution of funds.
The churning which is going on at the present is another stage in the evolution of the Constitution towards a more federal structure. The Centre has no power to dismiss state chief ministers in the strict constitutional sense. It was only the enmeshing of party and government by the Congress which made such sackings routine. The new government has inaugurated a much more equal and much more strictly constitutional treatment between the Centre and states, NITI Aayog is unlike the Planning Commission, and fiscal transfers are more generous. There is greater encouragement for states to pass their own laws, be they on labour reform, good governance or land acquisition.
Parliamentary disruption is nothing new. The Opposition in India seldom wins a vote. Indeed governments in India rarely take a Bill through all stages, amending and voting on the floor of the Houses. Bills are discussed outside Parliament, compromise reached and then the Bill is passed with much speed. The Telangana Bill was many years in discussion and passed within one hour. The UPA II had no majority in the Lok Sabha and even then it could manage to pass major Bills such as land acquisition and lokayukta. The Opposition can only exert its power by disruption.
As parliamentary practice goes, this is a massive waste of resources. In the British Parliament, Bills are improved by debate and amendments as they go through the full cycle of Second Reading, Committee, Report and a Third Reading. Many backbenchers of both sides can bring their specialised knowledge to bear. Governments often lose amendments, which then get incorporated in the final Act. The backbencher MP in India is mere lobby fodder or a battering ram for rushing into the well of the House and shouting slogans. This is not why the electorate elects them. It deserves better.
The advent of a non-Congress majority party at the Centre for the first time has made the reconsideration of parliamentary practice urgent. India deserves a better parliamentary culture. Indeed, even in the land Bill currently causing so much ruckus, good parliamentary practice would allow debate on the floor, with amendments proposed, voted upon and accepted by the government. Present practice says that since the Opposition disagrees and knows its impotence in amending the Bill, the only recourse is to prevent its introduction and debate.
This is not how a Parliament of over 60 years’ standing should behave. A new code of behaviour is needed to fashion a Parliament that works, not for one party or another but for the nation.
Share
