Anybody in the House?

Parliament debates bills and important non-legislative issues. For most debates, the party decides who would represent its view on the floor. An important function of an MP is to debate major issues so that differing perspectives are brought out in the process of formulating policy.

Now consider the attendance data of MPs from Lok Sabha in the Budget Session 2007. While the overall average attendance rate in Lok Sabha was 21 days in the 32-day session, the younger MPs (49 years or less) had an average attendance of 19 days. Members between ages 50-65 years and the seniors (age 66 years and above) had a better attendance record and averaged 21 days each. A similar study published in this newspaper a year ago also revealed that younger MPs have the lowest attendance record.

While attendance is an important indicator, it is instructive to look at the participation rates of MPs in legislative and non-legislative debates in Parliament. In all of 2006, 25 per cent of MPs did not participate in any debate. Out of the 75 per cent who participated, half spoke less than three times in Parliament in 2006 — not even an average of speaking once a session.

State-wise break-up of the data on participation in debates shows that Kerala MPs take the lead with every MP from the state having spoken in a debate at least once in 2006. If one looks for data on MPs speaking at least 3 times in a year during 2006, Kerala again leads with nearly 85 per cent MPs, followed by West Bengal and Orissa at just over 65 per cent. Among the other large states, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka and Maharashtra all fare poorly with almost two thirds of their MPs not speaking at least 3 times a year. This number works out to about 60 per cent in the case of UP, and about 50 per cent for Bihar. Small states and union territories, with 10 MPs or less, appear to represent their views better with about two-thirds of MPs speaking for more than 3 times during 2006.

The top three individual MPs who have spoken most frequently in Parliament during 2006 are: Shailendra Kumar from Uttar Pradesh, Bhartruhari Mahtab from Orissa, and Ram Kripal Yadav from Bihar. The average age of the 10 most frequent speakers in Parliament is 56 years.

Interestingly, MPs from states such as Karnataka, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh, seen to be among the more progressive states, have the lowest participation rates. Perhaps there is a greater need for MPs from such states to share the lessons learnt from some of their successful development initiatives with representatives from other states .

Admittedly, participation in Parliament is not the only way for MPs to show their concern for the people or to wield influence in the policy-making process. But the underlying issue is: how open and transparent is our policy-making process, and what can be done to bring it out on the floor of Parliament for all to see?

The fact that some of the younger MPs find it the least necessary to attend Parliament as compared with other age groups is disturbing. Young MPs may not have the same opportunities to speak on the floor of Parliament as their senior colleagues, but to not even attend Parliament regularly is surely a special cause for concern. Does their lower participation rate indicate a lack of adequate opportunity for younger MPs within the party/parliamentary framework? Or does it signal a more frightful possibility of younger MPs relying less on Parliament as an institution for debating and shaping policy? The promise they represent — of bringing in new ways of thinking about problems — will come to naught if important institutions like Parliament do not occupy centrestage in the policy-making process or are unable to use the talents and energies of these young MPs.

A number of issues that are coming up in the Monsoon Session require serious deliberation: the nuclear deal, SEZs, the flood situation in some states. Recently, the BJP has publicly pledged that it will debate rather than disrupt Parliament. This is a welcome sign. The collective effort of all political parties is necessary for giving Parliament the dignity it deserves.

The writer is director, PRS Legislative Research, New Delhi